Page 34 of 44 FirstFirst ...
24
32
33
34
35
36
... LastLast
  1. #661
    Considering the ammount of classes that use plate, leather and cloth, i would love a new mail class!
    The 2 latest added classes are leather (would be akward but i never understood why they didnt gave mail do monk or DH even if it difers from illidan barechestness it would have been possible.

  2. #662
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It does make sense, because none of my arguments imply impossibilities. They just point out irrational arguments.
    You mean like your argument that a death class doesn’t fit in a death expansion?

    Btw, where is that quote from Blizzard that shadowlands would thematically influence future expansions?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by fathom81 View Post
    Considering the ammount of classes that use plate, leather and cloth, i would love a new mail class!
    The 2 latest added classes are leather (would be akward but i never understood why they didnt gave mail do monk or DH even if it difers from illidan barechestness it would have been possible.
    Because Demon Hunters were an arsepull of epic proportions.

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    All they're going to be seeing of that character 90% of the time is the head and shoulders in the front, and the back of the mech in the back.
    Head, shoulders, arms and torso, as your own image demonstrated.
    And as soon as they enter the game, they'll press a button and be in mech form.
    You're assuming they'd copy the druid shtick by having all specs being in a mech all the time.
    Yeah I'm looking right at it. All you see is the head and shoulders and the top of the chest. Everything else is mech.
    Head, shoulders, arms and torso. And that's looking at it front view. Since the best camera position is above your character, you're likely to be seeing much more.

    And, now that I think about it, this is really amusing. "Don't like the gnomes and goblins? Just hide it!" It's much easier, simpler and cheaper for Blizzard to just make the class open to many other, more popular classes instead of risking a class being D.O.A. by restricting it to the two least liked races in the game.

    All this insistence in hiding the gnomes' and goblins' models betray you, because it shows you think they're bad-looking as well. Why don't you simply stick a strip of tape in the center of the screen to cover your character, and mute the sounds of the game when you play your gnome/goblin? That way you won't see or hear it.

    It's more highly unlikely that their mech form would just be a cooldown when it isn't in any representation of the class. That's from WC3 to WoW.
    Except not everything translates 1:1 from WC3 to WoW, and the druid already has the "fighting in alternate form" shtick.

    And abilities from HotS have begun entering WoW and being placed in multiple classes.
    Call me when my worgen warrior can fight in human form.

    Again, it's not from the waist up, its a bit below the shoulders and up.
    I think you did not realize that the gnomes' torso is a tiny little thing. It's ok, I don't blame you. I also think those things are too hideous and avoid looking at them as much as possible as well.

    LoL! They're not going to use the same models for a class ability as a mount.
    You're the one that keeps pointing at Mekkatorque's and Blackfuse's and Gazlowe's mechs, which just happen to be the same model as the mech mounts. And, must I remind you, that the druid animal forms use the same models as the normal beast mobs with minor alterations? (ears for NEs, horns for tauren, tusks for trolls, wolf head for worgen, and this and that texture change) Look at the bear mobs:


    And look at the druid form:


    Additionally since its a class ability, its going to get an entire host of animations and other attributes. That's how it works with classes.
    Read above. It's not how it works with classes because the druid forms' ability animations are the same as the normal mobs' ability animations. A bear druid's attack animations are the same as a bear mob's attack animations.

    And if a race was all about magic, you would include mages, warlocks, shaman, and pretty much any form of magic as well.
    Blood elves cannot be druids, and cannot be shamans. Point, set and match. You really don't think your arguments through, do you?

    The Tinker in WC3 could summon a mech and fight inside it permanently.
    Of course, the big caveat here that you love to omit, because you love to state this as fact, is that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That would be your opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That's your opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    This is completely your opinion. You have no idea what Blizzard will or won't do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    this is entirely your opinion.
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If the Alliance and Horde were facing off against a technological menace
    They'll fight with sword and sorcery like they always had.

    and needed to transverse a technological continent
    Mages can teleport and open portals. Even against a technological threat, a tech class isn't really needed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because Demon Hunters were an arsepull of epic proportions.
    Only because the demon hunter class doesn't fit your arbitrary "rules" you think Blizzard is shackled to when designing new classes.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2020-04-25 at 01:53 PM.
    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.

  4. #664
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Head, shoulders, arms and torso, as your own image demonstrated.
    You said from the waist up, that's a blatant falsehood.

    You're assuming they'd copy the druid shtick by having all specs being in a mech all the time.
    There's no reason why they wouldn't.

    Head, shoulders, arms and torso. And that's looking at it front view. Since the best camera position is above your character, you're likely to be seeing much more.
    Even above your character you're going to see 10% Gnome or Goblin and 90% mech.

    And, now that I think about it, this is really amusing. "Don't like the gnomes and goblins? Just hide it!" It's much easier, simpler and cheaper for Blizzard to just make the class open to many other, more popular classes instead of risking a class being D.O.A. by restricting it to the two least liked races in the game.
    Considering the class' popularity, there's pretty much zero chance that it would be DOA considering that the player base already attaches it to the Gnome and Goblin races. With that said, obviously hiding the Gnome and/or Goblin in a mech and surrounding it with the far more popular mech aesthetics takes care of people's issues with playing Gnomes and Goblins as expressed by your poll.

    Except not everything translates 1:1 from WC3 to WoW, and the druid already has the "fighting in alternate form" shtick.
    And Rogues and Monks already had the agile mobile fighter shtick too, and we still got Demon Hunters. In fact you were in favor of Demon Hunters being added to the game, despite them stepping all over the toes of Rogues and Monks. Also I highly doubt that the player base would mind a technological class similar to one of the most consistently popular classes in the game.


    Call me when my worgen warrior can fight in human form.
    Straw-man.

    You're the one that keeps pointing at Mekkatorque's and Blackfuse's and Gazlowe's mechs, which just happen to be the same model as the mech mounts. And, must I remind you, that the druid animal forms use the same models as the normal beast mobs with minor alterations? (ears for NEs, horns for tauren, tusks for trolls, wolf head for worgen, and this and that texture change) Look at the bear mobs:
    Do those animal forms have the dance/emotes that Druid forms do?

    Didn't think so.

    Read above. It's not how it works with classes because the druid forms' ability animations are the same as the normal mobs' ability animations. A bear druid's attack animations are the same as a bear mob's attack animations.
    We were talking about the lack of emotes and animations. Druid forms got those emotes and animations because they were connected to a class. There's no reason why a mech form associated with a class wouldn't also get more animations than a mount that doesn't require them.


    Blood elves cannot be druids, and cannot be shamans. Point, set and match. You really don't think your arguments through, do you?
    Yeah, that wasn't what I was talking about. I was saying if we were talking about the core aspect of a race, and that race was based on magic, we would include all forms of magic as an aspect of their racial lore. While magic is an important part of Blood Elves, they have a pretty huge non-magical component as well. Their racial leader is a Warrior for example. Both Goblin and Gnome racial leaders are Tinkers.

    Only because the demon hunter class doesn't fit your arbitrary "rules" you think Blizzard is shackled to when designing new classes.
    Considering that metamorphosis had to be given to the class (and removed from another class), and Demon Hunters are confined to only two races, and only has two specs, it certainly appears that they do follow those arbitrary rules.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2020-04-25 at 03:19 PM.

  5. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You said from the waist up, that's a blatant falsehood.
    It's not, because his lower belly is visible. Again, gnomes are tiny, tiny things. And I can see his torso with your camera pointing straight forward at him. Raising the camera up a bit, like I imagine most players do when they play the game, and you can see even more of him.

    There's no reason why they wouldn't.
    As much reason as why they should.

    Even above your character you're going to see 10% Gnome or Goblin and 90% mech.
    Except that "10% gnome" is still "80% of the gnome" people don't like the aesthetics of.

    Considering the class' popularity, there's pretty much zero chance that it would be DOA
    Pandaren were also "highly requested", according to Blizzard... and it's pretty much D.O.A. as well. Least picked race, despite having a class tailored for them, too.

    considering that the player base already attaches it to the Gnome and Goblin races.
    A claim you love to make yet has never presented any sort of evidence other than "because I, Teriz, say so!"

    With that said, obviously hiding the Gnome and/or Goblin in a mech and surrounding it with the far more popular mech aesthetics takes care of people's issues with playing Gnomes and Goblins as expressed by your poll.
    One: it doesn't solve anything. It's still a gnome or goblin in there. It's still the same voice lines and animations and player model.
    Two: if they have to hide the gnome, as you're saying they should, you're only agreeing that gnomes and goblins are ugly and "deserve to be hidden" so it completely tanks your whole "they'll be popular with a tech class" argument. An argument has already been tanked, to begin with, mind you.
    Three: your insisting that "the gnomes/goblins will be hidden" also reinforces the idea that a tech class, if added, is much more likely to be "generic tech" considering all the different techs in Azeroth, and will be open to many classes. Hell, we already have night elf tinkers. Or "tinkologist", like this gnome I don't care to remember the name of said.

    And Rogues and Monks already had the agile mobile fighter shtick too, and we still got Demon Hunters. In fact you were in favor of Demon Hunters being added to the game, despite them stepping all over the toes of Rogues and Monks. Also I highly doubt that the player base would mind a technological class similar to one of the most consistently popular classes in the game.
    On that note, I highly doubt the player base would like a class to be based off the two most consistently unpopular races in the game.

    Straw-man.
    It's not a strawman. Your argument is as follows: "it is in as such in HotS, then it will be as such in WoW".

    Do those animal forms have the dance/emotes that Druid forms do?

    Didn't think so.
    Yeah. They do, actually.

    We were talking about the lack of emotes and animations. Druid forms got those emotes and animations because they were connected to a class.
    Except they haven't:
    • They got the basic animal mob emotes. They don't have 'special emotes'.
    • They got the basic animal mob emotes because, in beast form, the humanoid form is gone and therefore cannot emote.

    Yeah, that wasn't what I was talking about. I was saying if we were talking about the core aspect of a race, and that race was based on magic, we would include all forms of magic as an aspect of their racial lore.
    Except that was exactly what you were talking about:
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And if a race was all about magic (1), you would include mages, warlocks, shaman, and pretty much any form of magic as well.(2)
    1) Blood elves are "all about magic". Sunwell, magic addiction, Silvermoon and their mana crystals, enchanted brooms, floating plant pots, etc?
    2) Blood elves cannot be druids and shamans.

    While magic is an important part of Blood Elves, they have a pretty huge non-magical component as well. Their racial leader is a Warrior for example. Both Goblin and Gnome racial leaders are Tinkers.
    This is blatantly and objectively false. Lor'themar being a warrior is meaningless. Especially since Kael'Thas and Anasterian are mages. The bulk of the blood elf army is comprised of mages and paladins. Their entire city and all their settlements are magic-based or magic-heavy.

    Considering that metamorphosis had to be given to the class (and removed from another class), and Demon Hunters are confined to only two races, and only has two specs, it certainly appears that they do follow those arbitrary rules.
    No, they don't. Otherwise, the class would have 3 specs, and would resemble your concept. Which they don't, at all.
    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.

  6. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You mean like your argument that a death class doesn’t fit in a death expansion?
    .
    If this is what you think, then you have been arguing with your own bias.

    Who said a desth class doesn't fit a death expansion?You said there are heavy Necromancer class themes in Shadowlands and your explanation ended up being talking about Hebrew fallen Angels and the Arbiter, then falling back on even broader concepts like the covenants themselves, which are being themed universally for all classes.

    You didn't say Death Themes, you said Necromancer themes. You didn't even say Necromancy, you chose the word Necromancer.

    'Shadowlands has a heavy Necromancer theme' makes no rational sense. 'Necromancer' and 'Death theme' aren't interchangeable words. Shadowlands is certainly a place themed on Death. Necromancers raise the dead, but Shadowlands doesn't have anything to do with raising the dead; all of its inhabitants are still dead.

    A rational person would admit a mistake and correct themselves. Yet here you are defending it, then trying to change what you said. I mean, you are one step away from calling me 'fake news.'
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-04-25 at 04:21 PM.

  7. #667
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If this is what you think, then you have been arguing with your own bias.

    Who said a desth class doesn't fit a death expansion?You said there are heavy Necromancer class themes in Shadowlands and your explanation ended up being talking about Hebrew fallen Angels and the Arbiter, then falling back on even broader concepts like the covenants themselves, which are being themed universally for all classes.

    You didn't say Death Themes, you said Necromancer themes. You didn't even say Necromancy, you chose the word Necromancer.

    'Shadowlands has a heavy Necromancer theme' makes no rational sense. 'Necromancer' and 'Death theme' aren't interchangeable words. Shadowlands is certainly a place themed on Death. Necromancers raise the dead, but Shadowlands doesn't have anything to do with raising the dead; all of its inhabitants are still dead.

    A rational person would admit a mistake and correct themselves. Yet here you are defending it, then trying to change what you said. I mean, you are one step away from calling me 'fake news.'
    Lets be honest here, looking at unpruning and the new costumization options, it is more likely than not that these are the reason why we get neither a new Allied race nor a new real race nor a class in Shadowlands. Look at Draenor, where we got nothing new because of the new character Models. It doesn't matter which class, Blizzard should have known that it will be controversial at best and creat a shitshow at best if they don't include a new class, considering that it was so far always common to get a new class every second expansion. So they should have known that people were expecting some kind of class with the new expansion.

    I mean, if we are honest, Death Knights being praised as the Death Class for this addon and allied race DKs as a feature for Shadowlands (new race/class combinations where never a feature you had to buy) is just an excuse for them simply not having ressources to creat a new class, being too busy with costumization and unpruning. Especially considering the blacklash they received for their bad class design and balancing issues at the beginning of BFA.

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiza View Post
    Lets be honest here, looking at unpruning and the new costumization options, it is more likely than not that these are the reason why we get neither a new Allied race nor a new real race nor a class in Shadowlands. Look at Draenor, where we got nothing new because of the new character Models. It doesn't matter which class, Blizzard should have known that it will be controversial at best and creat a shitshow at best if they don't include a new class, considering that it was so far always common to get a new class every second expansion. So they should have known that people were expecting some kind of class with the new expansion.

    I mean, if we are honest, Death Knights being praised as the Death Class for this addon and allied race DKs as a feature for Shadowlands (new race/class combinations where never a feature you had to buy) is just an excuse for them simply not having ressources to creat a new class, being too busy with costumization and unpruning. Especially considering the blacklash they received for their bad class design and balancing issues at the beginning of BFA.
    I agree. It's not some targetting thing against any particular class or class theme.

  9. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcsaar View Post
    The game released 16 years ago, and in those 16 years we've had 3 new classes added, and every single one has been a melee class.

    Is that not absurd to anyone else? The ranged class options in this game has become stagnant, and I'm starting to realize its one of the reasons I haven't been playing as much anymore.

    This expansion was the perfect opportunity to release a new ranged dps class, especially a cloth based one, and we got nothing. Nothing about Shadowlands looks like its going to be the huge win that WoW needs to skyrocket back into success.
    I think a new dwing pistols useing class would work by now.

  10. #670
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I'm talking about technology as a whole, not solely mech piloting. However, it's important to note that Mekgineers have been in mechs since vanilla, and the Gnomish spider tanks have also been around since vanilla, and those are also mechs.

    Further, Gazlowe, Marin, Gallywix, and Blackfuse all rode in mechs, and that wasn't for gathering lumber, it was for combat purposes. Gallywix fighting in a mech goes back to Cataclysm.
    But you are depicting it as if mechas where the sole defining aspect of gnomes and goblins which simply is not true, as most Goblins and Gnomes don't even have one. They are technology focussed, but if you just can't enjoy a gnome standing next to beast like races despite having access to all the weapons and armors to fit the race, it is on you and you simply don't enjoy gnomes visually. If you need a Mecha to enjoy them, you don't enjoy them at all. You enjoy the mecha and you could just swap the gnome with any other race. Which you will likely do, once Tinkers are available. I'm betting that you will not play a Gnome or Goblin Tinker, if they are ever included in the game.

  11. #671
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It's not, because his lower belly is visible.
    How utterly dishonest of you.

    As much reason as why they should.
    Considering the WC3 Ultimate ability which Blizzard always represents faithfully among the expansion classes, and as shown in this thread how it eliminates any aesthetic issues with Gnomes or Goblins, it would appear that going full mech would be beyond obvious.

    Except that "10% gnome" is still "80% of the gnome" people don't like the aesthetics of.
    Yeah, but they like the other 90%, so that 10% is irrelevant.


    Pandaren were also "highly requested", according to Blizzard... and it's pretty much D.O.A. as well.
    Actually there's more total Pandaren players in the game than Gnomes, Goblins, Dwarves, Nightborne, Lightforged Draenei, Dark Irons, and Worgen. Do you consider all of those races "DOA" as well?

    One: it doesn't solve anything. It's still a gnome or goblin in there. It's still the same voice lines and animations and player model.
    Two: if they have to hide the gnome, as you're saying they should, you're only agreeing that gnomes and goblins are ugly and "deserve to be hidden" so it completely tanks your whole "they'll be popular with a tech class" argument. An argument has already been tanked, to begin with, mind you.
    Three: your insisting that "the gnomes/goblins will be hidden" also reinforces the idea that a tech class, if added, is much more likely to be "generic tech" considering all the different techs in Azeroth, and will be open to many classes. Hell, we already have night elf tinkers. Or "tinkologist", like this gnome I don't care to remember the name of said.
    The entire point is that if people aren't playing Gnomes and Goblins because of aesthetics, a class that hides the Goblin and Gnomes changes that aesthetic. Seriously, it's that simple.

    On that note, I highly doubt the player base would like a class to be based off the two most consistently unpopular races in the game.
    The player base consistently votes for that class in just about every class-based poll. And the results are typically not close.

    It's not a strawman. Your argument is as follows: "it is in as such in HotS, then it will be as such in WoW".
    Um no. My argument is that Blizzard takes abilities from HotS and places them into WoW.

    And that still doesn't change the argument that Blizzard could give the mech suits their own set of emotes/dances.


    Except that was exactly what you were talking about:

    1) Blood elves are "all about magic". Sunwell, magic addiction, Silvermoon and their mana crystals, enchanted brooms, floating plant pots, etc?
    2) Blood elves cannot be druids and shamans.
    Yet they can use nature magic as Rangers.


    This is blatantly and objectively false. Lor'themar being a warrior is meaningless. Especially since Kael'Thas and Anasterian are mages. The bulk of the blood elf army is comprised of mages and paladins. Their entire city and all their settlements are magic-based or magic-heavy.
    Wouldn't a sizable bulk of the Blood Elf army be also comprised of Rangers?

    No, they don't. Otherwise, the class would have 3 specs, and would resemble your concept. Which they don't, at all.
    My concept only has 3 specs because I didn't think Blizzard would create a class with 2 specs. Blizzard gave the class 2 specs shoehorned in Metamorphosis, gave the DH new versions of Blur and Mana Burn, and kept it elven only in order to adhere to WC3 as closely as possible.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If this is what you think, then you have been arguing with your own bias.

    Who said a desth class doesn't fit a death expansion?You said there are heavy Necromancer class themes in Shadowlands and your explanation ended up being talking about Hebrew fallen Angels and the Arbiter, then falling back on even broader concepts like the covenants themselves, which are being themed universally for all classes.
    Uh no. My explanation was a zone full of Vampires and a zone full of Necromancers and Lichs along with angels and the judge of death. Again, how is that NOT an expansion conducive to Necromancers?

    You didn't say Death Themes, you said Necromancer themes. You didn't even say Necromancy, you chose the word Necromancer.
    Necromancer themes and death themes are interchangeable. Necromancers (and Death Knights) utilize death magic.

    'Shadowlands has a heavy Necromancer theme' makes no rational sense. 'Necromancer' and 'Death theme' aren't interchangeable words. Shadowlands is certainly a place themed on Death. Necromancers raise the dead, but Shadowlands doesn't have anything to do with raising the dead; all of its inhabitants are still dead.
    And here comes the irrational arguments from you again. If Necromancy has nothing to do with this expansion, why are the Death Knight's necromantic themes getting expanded in this expansion?

    A rational person would admit a mistake and correct themselves. Yet here you are defending it, then trying to change what you said. I mean, you are one step away from calling me 'fake news.'
    Defending the idea that if Blizzard was ever going to introduce a stand alone Necromancer class they would introduce it in an expansion revolving around death, the afterlife, the arbiter of death, the Lich King, Sylvanas, and necromancers? Absolutely.

  12. #672
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And here comes the irrational arguments from you again. If Necromancy has nothing to do with this expansion, why are the Death Knight's necromantic themes getting expanded in this expansion?
    But every class has concepts expanded too, not only DKs. Happens every expansion.


    Defending the idea that if Blizzard was ever going to introduce a stand alone Necromancer class they would introduce it in an expansion revolving around death, the afterlife, the arbiter of death, the Lich King, Sylvanas, and necromancers? Absolutely.
    Which doesn't mean that asking you for elaboration equates to thinking a Necromancer wouldn't fit.

    The reason is you could apply the same logic to Dark Rangers, Shadow Hunters, and even daresay Tinkers considering your previous logic that Tech that can't be ressurected is good against the undead.

    A death expansion is not mutually exclusive to Necromancers, especially of they would be introduced as a subclass
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-04-25 at 11:56 PM.

  13. #673
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    How utterly dishonest of you.
    Coming from you, that's "utterly hilarious".

    Considering the WC3 Ultimate ability which Blizzard always represents faithfully among the expansion classes
    I love how you have to add this specific caveat, "expansion classes", because you know your argument falls apart when we consider the other nine classes in the game.

    and as shown in this thread how it eliminates any aesthetic issues with Gnomes or Goblins,
    Except that it hasn't been shown. At all. Again, Teriz: you unilaterally claiming something does not make it a fact.

    Yeah, but they like the other 90%, so that 10% is irrelevant.
    A dish that is 90% perfection, and 10% literal shit that you literally squatted down and pooped on the plate, still means that the dish is shit. Jokes aside, again: it'll be the same gnome/goblin:
    • doing the voice lines;
    • doing the emotes;
    • showing up on the character selection screen;
    • showing up on the character pane;

    Actually there's more total Pandaren players in the game than Gnomes, Goblins, Dwarves, Nightborne, Lightforged Draenei, Dark Irons, and Worgen. Do you consider all of those races "DOA" as well?
    Because you're adding them together. You need to count them separately. Otherwise you'll have to add worgen' and goblins' populations together, as well as all allied races population together as well. You can't "add them together" while counting the other separately.

    The entire point is that if people aren't playing Gnomes and Goblins because of aesthetics, a class that hides the Goblin and Gnomes changes that aesthetic. Seriously, it's that simple.
    And that entire point is wrong. Seriously, it's that simple.
    And again: if the gnome/goblin has to be hidden, then you're only proving that it is simply not worth to make a class based on those races. Seriously, it's that simple.

    The player base consistently votes for that class in just about every class-based poll. And the results are typically not close.
    Which is completely irrelevant unless you can prove, without a shadow of doubt, that each and every single one of those who voted for a tech class want the class based on gnomes and goblins. Which you can't, which makes your claim completely pointless.

    And that still doesn't change the argument that Blizzard could give the mech suits their own set of emotes/dances.
    Except it does, because your tinker is not "special" enough to warrant special, unique emotes and animations, if the class that fights in actual different forms did not get special, unique emotes and animations. This only exacerbates your arrogance, wanting your class to be superior to the others.

    Yet they can use nature magic as Rangers.
    Except it's not "magic", just skills and gadgets. It's no more "magic" than the warrior summoning a dragon head, or causing lightning to strike around them.

    Wouldn't a sizable bulk of the Blood Elf army be also comprised of Rangers?
    Nope. Sunreavers and Blood Knights. On the expedition to Draenor, for example? The blood elf army was comprised of mages and paladins.

    My concept only has 3 specs because I didn't think Blizzard would create a class with 2 specs.
    Exactly. Blizzard has proven that they don't care about what you think. All your claims that Blizzard is somehow "forced" to follow a pattern, that they have "rules" they must adhere to, it's all bullshit. They'll do whatever they want. If they want to add a tech class open to all races except gnomes and goblins, they will. They can also never add a tech class. Nothing stops them.
    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. #674
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I love how you have to add this specific caveat, "expansion classes", because you know your argument falls apart when we consider the other nine classes in the game.
    Why would I extend it back to the classic classes? They clearly had a different criteria than the expansion classes have, and the Tinker falls in line almost perfectly with previous expansion class criteria.

    Except that it hasn't been shown. At all. Again, Teriz: you unilaterally claiming something does not make it a fact.
    It's been shown multiple times. You just don't want to accept it.


    A dish that is 90% perfection, and 10% literal shit that you literally squatted down and pooped on the plate, still means that the dish is shit. Jokes aside, again: it'll be the same gnome/goblin:
    • doing the voice lines;
    • doing the emotes;
    • showing up on the character selection screen;
    • showing up on the character pane;
    Except no one hates Gnomes and Goblins on that level. Not even in your poll where the majority said that they like Goblins and Gnomes.


    Because you're adding them together. You need to count them separately. Otherwise you'll have to add worgen' and goblins' populations together, as well as all allied races population together as well. You can't "add them together" while counting the other separately.
    Uh, Pandaren whether Horde or Alliance are the exact same race. They even have the same starting zone.


    And that entire point is wrong. Seriously, it's that simple.
    And again: if the gnome/goblin has to be hidden, then you're only proving that it is simply not worth to make a class based on those races. Seriously, it's that simple.
    Isn't that your entire argument though? Your argument is that people hate the way Gnomes or Goblins look which is why they don't play them. So we fix that problem by giving them an popular aesthetic (mechs) so that people are no longer bothered by the aesthetic. It's the perfect fix to the problem you're presenting yet for some reason you're still arguing against it.


    Which is completely irrelevant unless you can prove, without a shadow of doubt, that each and every single one of those who voted for a tech class want the class based on gnomes and goblins. Which you can't, which makes your claim completely pointless.
    Again, if someone knows what a warcraft Tinker is, they know that it is a Goblin and Gnome based class concept.


    Except it does, because your tinker is not "special" enough to warrant special, unique emotes and animations, if the class that fights in actual different forms did not get special, unique emotes and animations. This only exacerbates your arrogance, wanting your class to be superior to the others.
    It warrants it because it would be a new class. Demon Hunters got unique emotes and animations separate from standard Night Elves and BElves. Why wouldn't the Tinker class get unique emotes and animation separate from standard Gnomes and Goblins and existing mounts?

  15. #675
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why would I extend it back to the classic classes?
    Because they're all the same: player classes. As far as we know, they're designed with the same rules as expansion classes. Implying that they're not: one, requires you to present evidence of that; and two, shows that your argument does not stand on its own and requires crutches like that caveat.

    They clearly had a different criteria than the expansion classes have
    "Clearly"? Oh, this will be fun. Tell me: when did Blizzard ever said "we use a different criteria for designing expansion classes than we did developing our core classes."

    It's been shown multiple times. You just don't want to accept it.
    And every time you tried to it, I countered it with evidence you ignore. Again: you unilaterally saying "it's been addressed" does not make it so.

    Except no one hates Gnomes and Goblins on that level. Not even in your poll where the majority said that they like Goblins and Gnomes.
    Ok, there's too wrong in that single line. Let's unpack it.
    • First: you took a joke statement, that was explicitly stated to be a joke ("Jokes aside") and ran with it.
    • Second: do you know the mind of every single WoW player to state "no one hates gnomes and goblins on that level"? No, you don't. You're making assertion of facts of things you have no way of knowing.
    • Third: That first option in the poll is irrelevant when the question of the poll was "why do you not like gnomes and goblins".
    • Fourth: You complete ignored the actual point of what you quoted.

    Uh, Pandaren whether Horde or Alliance are the exact same race. They even have the same starting zone.
    That's irrelevant. They're still separate races as far as gameplay and population are concerned, because they're in opposite factions. In fact, you have every reason to not add them together, considering that the Huojin and Tushui pandaren population, when put together, they become more popular than gnomes and goblins, and those two races become the most disliked race in the game.

    Isn't that your entire argument though? Your argument is that people hate the way Gnomes or Goblins look which is why they don't play them. So we fix that problem
    That problem won't be fixed, for all the reasons I've listed, and will list again:
    • Still a gnome/goblin staring at you on the character selection screen.
    • Still a gnome/goblin staring at you on the character pane window.
    • Still a gnome/goblin voice lines being spoken.
    • Still a gnome/goblin animations.

    In other words:
    • Still a gnome/goblin.

    Again, if someone knows what a warcraft Tinker is, they know that it is a Goblin and Gnome based class concept.
    And that statement does absolutely squat to prove that the reason people want a tech class is because they want it gnome/goblin based.

    Logic isn't really your forte, is it? I mean, you used to love to use IronMan as examples when talking about your tinker class. Let's use them. Someone who would love to have a tech class "Ironman-ish" in WoW means they do not want "because gnome and goblins". They might want their human character to be like that. Or their blood elf character, and maybe couldn't even care less about gnomes and goblins.

    It warrants it because it would be a new class.
    No, it doesn't. Death knights, monks and demon hunters got no different emotes. Death knights and demon hunters get different voice lines because they're different from the rest of their race, by the way of being undead and tortured, and demonic-corrupted and tortured, respectively, which changed the very core of their being.

    Monks have different combat animations because that's their shtick: unarmed martial arts, which is used to showcase how different the fighting style is from the rest of the world and represent the pandaren culture.

    Tinkers... would be just like your average gnome, human, blood elf, night elf, tauren, etc. There is absolutely no need for them to have any different emote, animation or voice line.

    Why wouldn't the Tinker class get unique emotes and animation separate from standard Gnomes and Goblins and existing mounts?
    Because it's not anything special to warrant that. To claim that your class is "special so it warrants new emotes/animations", then every other single class in the game should get unique emotes and animations. Each and every single one.
    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.

  16. #676
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Because they're all the same: player classes. As far as we know, they're designed with the same rules as expansion classes. Implying that they're not: one, requires you to present evidence of that; and two, shows that your argument does not stand on its own and requires crutches like that caveat.
    Except we know for a fact that they aren't. The expansion classes are heavily tied to the theme of the expansions they're released in. In addition, they're even more tied to WC3 heroes and lore figures than the classic classes were.

    And every time you tried to it, I countered it with evidence you ignore. Again: you unilaterally saying "it's been addressed" does not make it so.
    What evidence? That you believe that people have no idea that the Warcraft Tinker is tied to Goblins and Gnomes? Okay.


    Ok, there's too wrong in that single line. Let's unpack it.
    • First: you took a joke statement, that was explicitly stated to be a joke ("Jokes aside") and ran with it.
    • Second: do you know the mind of every single WoW player to state "no one hates gnomes and goblins on that level"? No, you don't. You're making assertion of facts of things you have no way of knowing.
    • Third: That first option in the poll is irrelevant when the question of the poll was "why do you not like gnomes and goblins".
    • Fourth: You complete ignored the actual point of what you quoted.
    The only thing irrelevant is that entire quote. Again, your ENTIRE argument here is that your silly poll says that people hate Gnome and Goblin aesthetics. Obviously, a class that alters the Gnome and Goblin aesthetics into something popular eliminates that problem.

    Also LoL@ your most popular option (we LIKE Gnomes and Goblins) being irrelevant. I suppose that means your entire poll is irrelevant.

    That's irrelevant. They're still separate races as far as gameplay and population are concerned, because they're in opposite factions. In fact, you have every reason to not add them together, considering that the Huojin and Tushui pandaren population, when put together, they become more popular than gnomes and goblins, and those two races become the most disliked race in the game.
    Yeah, they're not separate races. Same animations, same appearance, same customization options, same starting zone. They can even communicate across faction lines. It's not a different race simply because it proved your dumb assertion wrong.


    That problem won't be fixed, for all the reasons I've listed, and will list again:
    • Still a gnome/goblin staring at you on the character selection screen.
    • Still a gnome/goblin staring at you on the character pane window.
    • Still a gnome/goblin voice lines being spoken.
    • Still a gnome/goblin animations.

    In other words:
    • Still a gnome/goblin.
    A gnome/goblin in a mech, which is a popular concept.


    And that statement does absolutely squat to prove that the reason people want a tech class is because they want it gnome/goblin based.

    Logic isn't really your forte, is it? I mean, you used to love to use IronMan as examples when talking about your tinker class. Let's use them. Someone who would love to have a tech class "Ironman-ish" in WoW means they do not want "because gnome and goblins". They might want their human character to be like that. Or their blood elf character, and maybe couldn't even care less about gnomes and goblins.
    Which is completely irrelevant to that statement. My point is that if you know what a Warcraft Tinker is, then you know its Goblin or Gnome based. If you want a human Tinker, that's something else entirely, and completely your right to want. That doesn't change the fact that in Warcraft, the Tinker concept completely revolves around Goblins and Gnomes, and I seriously doubt that the majority of people voting for a Tinker in a poll don't realize that.

    No, it doesn't. Death knights, monks and demon hunters got no different emotes. Death knights and demon hunters get different voice lines because they're different from the rest of their race, by the way of being undead and tortured, and demonic-corrupted and tortured, respectively, which changed the very core of their being.

    Monks have different combat animations because that's their shtick: unarmed martial arts, which is used to showcase how different the fighting style is from the rest of the world and represent the pandaren culture.

    Tinkers... would be just like your average gnome, human, blood elf, night elf, tauren, etc. There is absolutely no need for them to have any different emote, animation or voice line.
    So Demon Hunters get new models for Metamorphosis (they didn't get the existing models from Warlocks), separate Metamorphosis models for BElves and NEs, all new voice lines and emotes, Death Knights get unique undead models for each undead race, a unique mount, exclusive weapons and armor, Monks get new animations for each race allowed to be a monk, and their own special set of weapons and armor.

    Tinkers would get nothing but recycled stuff because @Ielenia doesn't like them.

    Gotcha.

    Because it's not anything special to warrant that. To claim that your class is "special so it warrants new emotes/animations", then every other single class in the game should get unique emotes and animations. Each and every single one.
    Every single expansion class got them.

  17. #677
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except we know for a fact that they aren't. The expansion classes are heavily tied to the theme of the expansions they're released in. In addition, they're even more tied to WC3 heroes and lore figures than the classic classes were.
    Um... really? The monk class is tangentially related to Chen. In fact, it's more like Chen is related to the monk class than the other way around. The Monk class was created almost exclusively from concepts outside of Warcraft, with the WC3 unit put in for 'flavor'. Also:
    • The mage class? Medivh, Kael'Thas, Jaina.
    • The paladin class? Uther, Turalyon, pre-DK Arthas.
    • Warrior class? Muradin, Gromm.
    • Warlock? Gul'dan.
    • Etc, etc.

    What evidence?
    Your very own pictures, showing the Mekkatorque's head, shoulders, arms and upper torso.

    That you believe that people have no idea that the Warcraft Tinker is tied to Goblins and Gnomes? Okay.
    If you can show me where I ever said that, I swear on my life I'll never again make any sort of negative comment regarding the malformed midgets and nauseated gremlins.

    The only thing irrelevant is that entire quote. Again, your ENTIRE argument here is that your silly poll says that people hate Gnome and Goblin aesthetics. Obviously, a class that alters the Gnome and Goblin aesthetics into something popular eliminates that problem.
    Except it does not. Because it'll still be the same gnome and goblin inside that mech, having the exact same voice lines and emotes.

    And if a race is so hideous that the solution is just "fuck it, let's hide them", then might as well not even bother with them and make the tech class not based on them at all because it shows that those races aren't popular enough to warrant a class based on them.

    Also LoL@ your most popular option (we LIKE Gnomes and Goblins) being irrelevant. I suppose that means your entire poll is irrelevant.
    It is irrelevant because it is irrelevant to the question asked and the topic being discussed here, which is "the reason why people don't play gnomes or goblins".

    Yeah, they're not separate races. Same animations, same appearance, same customization options, same starting zone. They can even communicate across faction lines. It's not a different race simply because it proved your dumb assertion wrong.
    I hope you're aware that you're making the gnomes and goblins look even worse, because if we grant you that it's fine to add both pandaren races together, the gnomes and goblins become officially the least picked non-allied race choice.

    A gnome/goblin in a mech,
    In other words:
    • Still a gnome/goblin.

    which is a popular concept.
    In your dreams. The tech class may be a popular concept, but that in no way indicates that the 'gnomes/goblins in mech' is an equally popular concept.

    Which is completely irrelevant to that statement. My point is that if you know what a Warcraft Tinker is, then you know its Goblin or Gnome based.
    Which, again, is irrelevant to the kind of class one wants. Just because one wants to play as a tech class does not mean they want to play a gnome or goblin, or even want the class to be based around those races.

    So Demon Hunters get new models for Metamorphosis (they didn't get the existing models from Warlocks),
    It was just four new models, one per spec, one per gender.
    separate Metamorphosis models for BElves and NEs,
    They have the exact same model, just a palette swap. The only model difference is male/female, but between the races? The exact same.

    Other than that? both of the quotes above are irrelevant, since nobody is saying the mechs wouldn't get new models, assuming a tech class even has them, and it's also off-topic to the subject of how people don't like the gnome/goblin aesthetic.

    all new voice lines and emotes,
    They have the exact same emotes and the new voice lines are warranted, as explained at the bottom.
    Death Knights get unique undead models for each undead race,
    Palette change and glow-y eyes. Big whoop. Much easier, simpler, faster and cheaper than making new animations.
    a unique mount, exclusive weapons and armor,
    So now "mounts" somehow counts? And why do you care for weapons and armor if your ideal tinker is hiding everything inside a mech, anyways?
    Monks get new animations for each race allowed to be a monk,
    Which is warranted, again explained at the bottom of this post.
    and their own special set of weapons and armor.
    Again: why do you care for weapons and armor if your ideal tinker is hiding everything inside a mech, anyways?

    Tinkers would get nothing but recycled stuff because @Ielenia doesn't like them.
    Oh, wow. How petty do you have to be to /mention me in the some post where you're quoting me? Just... wow.

    Every single expansion class got them.
    Because there was a good reason for that: death knights and demon hunters were afflicted with undeath and demon possession, respectively, which greatly changed them at their very core. That is more than strong reasoning for the new voice lines. However, their emotes and animations are the same as any other member of their race. Seriously, go '/clap' as a NE demon hunter and a NE any-class. The monk has a different fighting style, that hails from a completely different culture. That is more than strong reasoning to giving them different combat animations, but they still have the exact same voice lines and emote animations as any other member of their race.

    A tech class, however, does not have a reason, much less a strong one, to warrant unique voice lines or animations. The characters aren't changed "to their very core" nor do they possess a special unarmed fighting style.
    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.

  18. #678
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Um... really? The monk class is tangentially related to Chen. In fact, it's more like Chen is related to the monk class than the other way around. The Monk class was created almost exclusively from concepts outside of Warcraft, with the WC3 unit put in for 'flavor'. Also:
    • The mage class? Medivh, Kael'Thas, Jaina.
    • The paladin class? Uther, Turalyon, pre-DK Arthas.
    • Warrior class? Muradin, Gromm.
    • Warlock? Gul'dan.
    • Etc, etc.
    And Rogues and Priests?

    ALL of the Expansion classes are tied to WC3 hero units and lore figures. The classic races? The majority, but certainly not all of them.


    Your very own pictures, showing the Mekkatorque's head, shoulders, arms and upper torso.
    Completely surrounded by a mech.


    If you can show me where I ever said that, I swear on my life I'll never again make any sort of negative comment regarding the malformed midgets and nauseated gremlins.
    Wow, you literally made that argument in an earlier post in this thread. Remember our back and forth about googling Tinkers?


    Except it does not. Because it'll still be the same gnome and goblin inside that mech, having the exact same voice lines and emotes.
    Yes, other expansion classes get new emotes and voice lines, but Tinkers get nothing because you don't like them. We get it.

    And if a race is so hideous that the solution is just "fuck it, let's hide them", then might as well not even bother with them and make the tech class not based on them at all because it shows that those races aren't popular enough to warrant a class based on them.
    Not everyone finds them hideous like you do. In fact your poll showed that the majority liked them. They just need a reason to play them.

    It is irrelevant because it is irrelevant to the question asked and the topic being discussed here, which is "the reason why people don't play gnomes or goblins".
    Except that wasn't the question asked in that poll. The question was "Why do you dislike Gnomes and Goblins". The majority do not dislike Gnome and Goblins as much as you clearly do.


    I hope you're aware that you're making the gnomes and goblins look even worse, because if we grant you that it's fine to add both pandaren races together, the gnomes and goblins become officially the least picked non-allied race choice.
    Without a class that represents their racial lore, I don't find that surprising. I'm also sure that Mechagnomes will be the least popular allied race.


    In your dreams. The tech class may be a popular concept, but that in no way indicates that the 'gnomes/goblins in mech' is an equally popular concept.
    Ah there we go. You're once again saying that people who vote for Tinker have no idea that the Warcraft Tinker is tied to Goblins/Gnomes.


    It was just four new models, one per spec, one per gender.
    Hilarious.. "Just four new models". It's still new models with new animations, something you said the Tinker class wouldn't get for "reasons"...

    They have the exact same model, just a palette swap. The only model difference is male/female, but between the races? The exact same.
    And Blizzard could have just given them the old Warlock metamorphosis right? That's your argument for the Tinker class.


    Because there was a good reason for that: death knights and demon hunters were afflicted with undeath and demon possession, respectively, which greatly changed them at their very core. That is more than strong reasoning for the new voice lines. However, their emotes and animations are the same as any other member of their race. Seriously, go '/clap' as a NE demon hunter and a NE any-class. The monk has a different fighting style, that hails from a completely different culture. That is more than strong reasoning to giving them different combat animations, but they still have the exact same voice lines and emote animations as any other member of their race.

    A tech class, however, does not have a reason, much less a strong one, to warrant unique voice lines or animations. The characters aren't changed "to their very core" nor do they possess a special unarmed fighting style.
    Translation; The Tinker class deserves nothing new like other expansion classes receive because @Ielenia doesn't like them. That's all you had to say.

  19. #679
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And Rogues and Priests?

    ALL of the Expansion classes are tied to WC3 hero units and lore figures. The classic races? The majority, but certainly not all of them.
    Two out of nine. But still, it only shows that it's an arbitrary caveat you must use otherwise your argument doesn't work.

    Completely surrounded by a mech.
    Still with heads, arms and torso visible.

    Wow, you literally made that argument in an earlier post in this thread. Remember our back and forth about googling Tinkers?
    I'm still waiting for you to quote my comment where you claim I said that. Where is it?

    Yes, other expansion classes get new emotes and voice lines, but Tinkers get nothing because you don't like them. We get it.
    I wrote an explanation why those classes were warranted new combat animations or voice lines not just once, but twice. If you are just going to plug your ears and go "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" that's completely on you.

    The point is: those classes' lore warranted the new voice lines or combat animations. Nothing in the lore for a tech class warrants new voice lines or combat animations for the player model, but you want them simply because you want the tinker to be "special".

    Not everyone finds them hideous like you do. In fact your poll showed that the majority liked them. They just need a reason to play them.
    Considering your insistence in completely hiding the model, I'm thinking you do, perhaps more than I do. And again: aesthetics of the player model. A tech class doesn't fix that. Hell, even allowing gnomes/goblins to be druids wouldn't fix that.

    Except that wasn't the question asked in that poll. The question was "Why do you dislike Gnomes and Goblins". The majority do not dislike Gnome and Goblins as much as you clearly do.
    ... Y'know, every time I wrote that you lacked reading comprehension was made as a joke. But now I truly believe you lack reading comprehension skills. Teriz, if they dislike gnomes and goblins, they're not playing one. The questions are basically one and the same in the context being discussed here.

    And, once again: the first option in that poll is completely immaterial because it doesn't address the question posed by the poll itself.

    Without a class that represents their racial lore, I don't find that surprising.
    Well, that claim of yours was disproved already by having night elves being more represented in the same classes also available to gnomes. Vastly more represented, too.

    I'm also sure that Mechagnomes will be the least popular allied race.
    Probably because they're based off a race that is already the most unpopular one. Imagine that. Even goblins beat gnomes.

    Ah there we go. You're once again saying that people who vote for Tinker have no idea that the Warcraft Tinker is tied to Goblins/Gnomes.
    Nope. Not what I said at all. It's confirmed: you completely lack reading comprehension. Either that, or you're being blatantly dishonest. So which one are you? have difficulty understanding what you read, or openly dishonest? I'm leaning on the latter option.

    Hilarious.. "Just four new models". It's still new models with new animations, something you said the Tinker class wouldn't get for "reasons"...
    Well, looks like I have to repeat myself, again, because you love to skip and ignore parts that destroy your arguments:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Other than that? both of the quotes above are irrelevant, since nobody is saying the mechs wouldn't get new models,

    Translation; The Tinker class deserves nothing new like other expansion classes receive because @Ielenia doesn't like them. That's all you had to say.
    So you're both /mentioning AND /quoting me. Again. Translation: "Teriz just wants to be petty." You think spamming my notification box somehow makes your arguments stronger? Newsflash: they don't.

    What's next? Going to start sending me PMs too?
    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.

  20. #680
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Two out of nine. But still, it only shows that it's an arbitrary caveat you must use otherwise your argument doesn't work.
    Three. Gul'dan wasn't in WC3, and the Warlock class was not based on any specific hero in WC3, just like Priests and Rogues.


    Still with heads, arms and torso visible.
    Okay, since the head and shoulders of a Goblin or Gnome inside a mech is such a problem for some people, then just allow this as an option;



    Problem solved. Now no one has to see the Gnome or Goblin at all. They could even be able to customize the image on the visor.

    I wrote an explanation why those classes were warranted new combat animations or voice lines not just once, but twice. If you are just going to plug your ears and go "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" that's completely on you.
    Yes, because absurd comments like a tech-based class doesn't need new animations, emotes, etc. but a Demon-based class, an undead-based class, and a martial arts-based class do because of "reasons" doesn't really warrant a serious response.

    Considering your insistence in completely hiding the model, I'm thinking you do, perhaps more than I do. And again: aesthetics of the player model. A tech class doesn't fix that. Hell, even allowing gnomes/goblins to be druids wouldn't fix that.
    I'm just making sure that people who apparently can't stomach the appearance of Goblins and Gnomes will have the option of playing the Tinker class without having to look at them at all. Again, if aesthetics are the problem, then making a class that eliminates that problem completely will logically help the situation.

    ... Y'know, every time I wrote that you lacked reading comprehension was made as a joke. But now I truly believe you lack reading comprehension skills. Teriz, if they dislike gnomes and goblins, they're not playing one. The questions are basically one and the same in the context being discussed here.
    That isn't the point. You said that the answer "I like Goblins and Gnomes" was irrelevant because you thought the question was "Why do you not play Goblins and Gnomes." That wasn't the actual question to the poll.

    And, once again: the first option in that poll is completely immaterial because it doesn't address the question posed by the poll itself.
    It's no less immaterial than a poll asking "What new class do you want for the next expansion?" and people hitting the "No new class" option. That's still a valid response to the poll, just like answering "I like Goblins and Gnomes" in a poll asking you "Why do you dislike Goblins and Gnomes?". That's why the OP put that option in the poll in the first place. The only thing immaterial is you trying to ignore the results of that answer because it contradicts your points, just like the Pandaren population did.

    Well, that claim of yours was disproved already by having night elves being more represented in the same classes also available to gnomes. Vastly more represented, too.
    Well obviously when the game gives you multiple classes and lore that compliments your race, there's going to be spillover, and when the other race is pretty much completely ignored in lore and class options, there's going to be some negative effects.

    Probably because they're based off a race that is already the most unpopular one. Imagine that. Even goblins beat gnomes.
    I have no doubt that it is quite difficult playing a robotic race in a game with nothing but medieval style classes.


    Well, looks like I have to repeat myself, again, because you love to skip and ignore parts that destroy your arguments:
    You do know that that new Metamorphosis model for the Demon Hunter came with new animations right? You said that a Tinker class warrants no new animations, which would also mean that they don't warrant new models either. Like I said, you only oppose new models and new animations on a Tinker because you don't like the concept.

    Don't worry, I won't mention you anymore because it clearly upsets you.

Posting Permissions

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