1. #3181
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except the way the HotS Tinker concept plays is similar to the way the WC3 Tinker hero plays,
    And Samuro plays similarly to the blademaster in WC3. But both play very differently than the warrior class we have in WoW.

    Thus calling it "meaningless" is purely your opinion,
    It's amazing how much you lack self-awareness, because you not only dismiss other people's arguments as "opinions", but also use your own opinions as facts, here.

    an ignorant opinion at that.
    Drive-in movie theater projects can't project this hard...

    I'm merely placing the word in its proper context in WoW.
    You're not. You're making a redefinition that has no basis in the lore. It's based solely in your narrative.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  2. #3182
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And Samuro plays similarly to the blademaster in WC3. But both play very differently than the warrior class we have in WoW.
    Because the Warrior class is not completely based on the Blademaster concept. The Blademaster concept was divided into multiple classes.

    You're not. You're making a redefinition that has no basis in the lore. It's based solely in your narrative.
    I'm just going by how the profession operates within WoW; An unimportant timesink that your character doesn't need to engage in.

  3. #3183
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I'm just going by how the profession operates within WoW; An unimportant timesink that your character doesn't need to engage in.
    Once again, you're conflating gameplay and lore. Gameplay is not lore, and lore is not gameplay.

    I'll repeat for truth: you are redefining terms with zero evidence in the lore, based on nothing but your own narrative.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  4. #3184
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Obviously Blizzard cared, which is why Mages and Shaman also didn't get that attribute. So when DKs entered WoW in WotLK the precedent had been set.

    Honestly I have yet to hear many complain about the DK not being able to be mounted at all times.
    So you think that Blizzard's approach to class design will be that anything that is an ability needs to be 100% brought in and anything else doesn't matter? That seems like a rather weird approach. And I have no idea how many people are put off by DKs not being mounted (Mages or Shamans too for that matter). I do imagine that some people are though, and for them that was a sucky thing.

    We have. Again look at the WC3, HotS, and TTRPG character. It is a consistent theme utilized over and over again. Further, the precedent set by previous class implementations shows that Blizzard brings in the expansion classes rather close to their WC3 concept. So while the DK didn't get to be mounted at all times (because it wasn't an ability), it still got the undead horse. It also got ALL of its WC3 abilities. Once again, one of the Tinker's WC3 abilities is permanent mech form.
    You have come to this conclusion for yourself, which is fine. More power to you for that. But that doesn't make it anywhere near an objective fact. I just don't agree. I don't think that what was present in WC3, HotS or anything else actually has any real bearing on class design in the way you seem to think it does. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fact. It's just my opinion. For all I know Blizzard has a book in their office titled "Class Design Requirements" that lists all those sources and says that anything they had to WoW must follow that. No idea. I just don't think so. At the end of the day all we have are opinions, which means we haven't really established anything.

    No, because the Tinker's bombs come from their mechs. Further if they have a permanent mech form, a bomb toss from their "caster" mode wouldn't make much sense. Not saying it's out of the realm of possibility, but I see the caster mode having more laser and shielding abilities than explosive abilities.
    In your class fantasy, sure. In my class fantasy, they toss bombs at their enemy. In your class fantasy they have a permanent mech. In my class fantasy they do not. Until Blizzard actually makes a Tinker class, we don't know what a Tinker actually is or does.

    Well if we're talking about Reeves, he isn't going to see it because you can't summon Reeves outside of the broken isles. If its the Sky Golem, the farmer would see a Janky mess with sparks popping out of it, and the overall machine looking like it was going to fall apart. A Tinker's mech should be more like Mekkatorque's, where there is no jankiness, no screws popping out, and the machine looking like it was built by a skilled engineer instead of a hobbyist.
    Again, that's supposition. Also, suppose Farmer joe is now Farmer Thogg, Orc farmer and it's two Goblins he's seeing, each in a mech. One is a Sky Golem, one is a Tinker mech. Both look janky with sparks and what not, because goblin aesthetic. Famer Thogg is going to have no idea which dude is a Tinker and which is an engineer.

    Well you're thinking of the character in of itself. I'm talking about Gazlowe's association with the Tinker. When he's associated with the Tinker, he gets shown with the "half" mech he had from HotS. He also has his own Goblin Shredder in WoW. My overall point here is simply that if Blizzard introduces the Tinker class, Gazlowe is going to be the lore figure attached to it. Now, how much Blizzard pushes that remains to be seen. I could definitely see a Gazlowe Tinker statue made, and some promotional art for whatever expansion the Tinker releases in.

    We also shouldn't discount Blizzard's art team, who are amazing at what they do.
    Okay, let's imagine that Gazlowe is the lore figure attached Could that not just as easily be presented as a guy with a claw pack instead of a guy with a mech? Couldn't that be the image of the playable Tinker?

    But I don't see Gazloe getting anything like the Sylvanas, Arthas or Illidan treatment. As far as lore characters go, he just isn't anywhere that level of popularity. He could get the Chen Stormstout treatment, but without a brand new land to also showcase in that way, I would be very surprised.

    Well you're looking at it as something that Blizzard doesn't need anymore. Blizzard more than likely views it as a gold mine they can keep mining until the resource runs dry. I mean consider what we have with the Tinker; We have the general design. We have over a dozen abilities. We have a general structure of a three spec class. You could design this class in your sleep, because very little needs to be done to make it a "Warcraft concept". It's been a Warcraft concept for years now, and it has no overlapping abilities with the existing class lineup. You can even attach it to a known character. I mean, it's a no brainer.

    I mean at this point, why would you stop using a winning formula? Especially when you have another candidate from the same pedigree ready to drop whenever you're ready to do so?
    They've emptied that mine though. Everything and so much more that was in that mine has been taken and tossed into WoW itself. They really don't need to go back to it, considering how much more time and effort has gone into WoW than into WC3.

    Now I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there's a ton of potential to grab stuff from WC3 to add to a new class. I think it does make sense as the ideas there are good ones that could work as a foundation for a tech class. I just don't think they have to, and that they can take a hard look at the tech they've already implemented into WoW and use that to build a class around.

  5. #3185
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,130
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    So you think that Blizzard's approach to class design will be that anything that is an ability needs to be 100% brought in and anything else doesn't matter? That seems like a rather weird approach. And I have no idea how many people are put off by DKs not being mounted (Mages or Shamans too for that matter). I do imagine that some people are though, and for them that was a sucky thing.
    I believe Blizzard's approach in terms of the mounted heroes was that all classes should be on foot, and out of combat they can mount. Seems like a smart way to do balance. Considering I've never seen a thread petitioning for DKs to be permanently mounted, I would say it was a wise design decision.

    You have come to this conclusion for yourself, which is fine. More power to you for that. But that doesn't make it anywhere near an objective fact. I just don't agree. I don't think that what was present in WC3, HotS or anything else actually has any real bearing on class design in the way you seem to think it does. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fact. It's just my opinion. For all I know Blizzard has a book in their office titled "Class Design Requirements" that lists all those sources and says that anything they had to WoW must follow that. No idea. I just don't think so. At the end of the day all we have are opinions, which means we haven't really established anything.
    Well these are the last three WoW expansion classes;



    Why would Blizzard suddenly abandon their design structure when they get to this one;


    ??

    In your class fantasy, sure. In my class fantasy, they toss bombs at their enemy. In your class fantasy they have a permanent mech. In my class fantasy they do not. Until Blizzard actually makes a Tinker class, we don't know what a Tinker actually is or does.
    Death Knights got their ultimate ability which was an AoE raise undead ability, Monks got their ultimate where they split into three elemental forms, and Demon Hunters got their ultimate ability where they temporarily turned into a demon.

    Why wouldn't the Tinker get their ultimate ability of permanently piloting a mech?

    Again, that's supposition. Also, suppose Farmer joe is now Farmer Thogg, Orc farmer and it's two Goblins he's seeing, each in a mech. One is a Sky Golem, one is a Tinker mech. Both look janky with sparks and what not, because goblin aesthetic. Famer Thogg is going to have no idea which dude is a Tinker and which is an engineer.
    But again, Gazlowe's shredder isn't janky with sparks flying. The GMOD, AMOD, and Crowd Pummeler aren't janky with sparks flying either.

    Okay, let's imagine that Gazlowe is the lore figure attached Could that not just as easily be presented as a guy with a claw pack instead of a guy with a mech? Couldn't that be the image of the playable Tinker?
    The claw pack transforms into a mech. They're one in the same.

    But I don't see Gazloe getting anything like the Sylvanas, Arthas or Illidan treatment. As far as lore characters go, he just isn't anywhere that level of popularity. He could get the Chen Stormstout treatment, but without a brand new land to also showcase in that way, I would be very surprised.
    Which actually makes sense, since the Tinker class would likely start from level 1 just like Monks. As for new land, you'd probably be looking at Undermine.

    They've emptied that mine though. Everything and so much more that was in that mine has been taken and tossed into WoW itself. They really don't need to go back to it, considering how much more time and effort has gone into WoW than into WC3.

    Now I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there's a ton of potential to grab stuff from WC3 to add to a new class. I think it does make sense as the ideas there are good ones that could work as a foundation for a tech class. I just don't think they have to, and that they can take a hard look at the tech they've already implemented into WoW and use that to build a class around.
    They don't have to, but why would you abandon a concept that's prime for implementation that seems desired by the user base (just look what people went through to get Reeves for example]. Especially when you consider that the alternative amounts to nothing more than a supped up Hunter tossing bombs.

  6. #3186
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why would Blizzard suddenly abandon their design structure when they get to this one;
    You haven't proven yet that Blizzard has a "design structure" yet. All you have is an opinion, and your opinion is rejected by many.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  7. #3187
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No, it's not satisfying period. The Reeves Combat module requires weeks to acquire the materials to construct, and once you construct it, you can only use it on Broken Isles. However, even there you can't use Reeves for questing because the quest giver won't recognize you and you can't loot corpses. Also once the duration ends there's a 30 minute cool down. Finally you can't use it for dungeons or raids.

    Supposedly there's some trick where you can use it for PvP, but yeah, not viable.

    Unlike say, you being a Forsaken Hunter and having a skeletal dog and being a Nathanos-style Dark Ranger, or you being a Void Elf Hunter and being a Sylvanas style Dark Ranger. Those are perfectly viable options that people don't like because it isn't exactly the way they want it.



    Your paragraphs say the exact same thing over and over again. I consider it trimming the fat.



    That would be correct.




    A warrior learning engineering is.

    Also Blackfuse and Gazlowe's shredder move nothing like the sky golem. They move more like the Lightforged Warframe. The Sky Golem's animations are purposely skewed to give the appearance of a poorly built mech.
    I didn't talk about what you can, or can't, do with Reaves combat module. I talked, strictly, about elements. Since it is a mech, and it is usable, then the Engineering profession covers that Element, as well.

    That wouldn't be correct, unless you consider Claw Pack a mech. Because when you were talking about a mech, you referred to the Robo-Goblin, not Claw pack.

    "Gnomish technology is not quite as prone to malfunction as goblin technology, and gnomes tend to produce devices that have more specialized and unusual effects."

    "Goblin tinkers differ from their gnomish counterparts. Goblins enjoy instant gratification. They work on an invention until it sort of, kind of functions, then they move on to another one. They get a thrill when they finish something, even if "finishing" means that it works properly one out of ten times."

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That would be a Blademaster, not a Warrior.
    I thought you considered them the same.
    I'm gonna hold onto that line
    Last edited by Unbelievable; 2021-01-19 at 10:19 PM.

  8. #3188
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You haven't proven yet that Blizzard has a "design structure" yet. All you have is an opinion, and your opinion is rejected by many.
    Rejected on the basis of denialism. Nothing more, nothing less.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    I didn't talk about what you can, or can't, do with Reaves combat module. I talked, strictly, about elements. Since it is a mech, and it is usable, then the Engineering profession covers that Element, as well.
    You didn't need to, I did it for you. Saying that Reeves is a suitable stand in for a Tinker with a mech is an absurd statement, because the Reeves is non viable on multiple levels.

    That wouldn't be correct, unless you consider Claw Pack a mech. Because when you were talking about a mech, you referred to the Robo-Goblin, not Claw pack.
    Yes, you can consider Claw Packs a type of mech. However, the Tinker in WC3 and early iterations of HotS allowed the Claw Pack to transform into a mech.

    "Gnomish technology is not quite as prone to malfunction as goblin technology, and gnomes tend to produce devices that have more specialized and unusual effects."

    "Goblin tinkers differ from their gnomish counterparts. Goblins enjoy instant gratification. They work on an invention until it sort of, kind of functions, then they move on to another one. They get a thrill when they finish something, even if "finishing" means that it works properly one out of ten times."
    Lore bits that mean diddly squat when it comes to class mechanics. Also once again, we have multiple examples of Goblin mechs that are nowhere near as janky or badly built as the Sky Golem.

    I thought you considered them the same.
    I'm gonna hold onto that line
    They aren't the same, but Warriors (and Rogues) take their design space in the class lineup.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-01-19 at 11:02 PM.

  9. #3189
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Rejected on the basis of denialism. Nothing more, nothing less.
    No. We reject it because it's an opinion we do not agree with. Because we have not been provided conclusive evidence that your opinion merits belief.

    That's all you have: hypothesis. Speculation. Assumption. A guess. A hunch. An idea. An opinion.

    And if you think your opinion is fact, then I'm sorry to say, but it's not me the one who's living in denial.

    It's you.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  10. #3190
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You didn't need to, I did it for you. Saying that Reeves is a suitable stand in for a Tinker with a mech is an absurd statement, because the Reeves is non viable on multiple levels.



    Yes, you can consider Claw Packs a type of mech. However, the Tinker in WC3 and early iterations of HotS allowed the Claw Pack to transform into a mech.



    Lore bits that mean diddly squat when it comes to class mechanics. Also once again, we have multiple examples of Goblin mechs that are nowhere near as janky or badly built as the Sky Golem.



    They aren't the same, but Warriors (and Rogues) take their design space in the class lineup.
    Viable or not, it is in the Engineering professions. Therefore, covering that element of the Tinker and blurring the line between a Tinker and an Engineer.

    Yet, when you demand explosives to be fired from a mech, you never mean the claw pack. So, don't pretend to use them interchangeably.

    Actually, it means quite a lot. That's the separation between Goblin and Gnomish tech - visually and functionally. If you want your Tinker to be using Goblin and Gnomish tech, you need to know how to distinguish between them. Meanwhile, unlike how you've been using it, it is not the difference between a Tinker and an Engineer.

    Boo-hoo...
    Warlocks, Rogues and Priests took the design space of Demon Hunters in the class-line and it didn't prevent them from being added.

  11. #3191
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Viable or not, it is in the Engineering professions. Therefore, covering that element of the Tinker and blurring the line between a Tinker and an Engineer.
    If its not viable it doesn't matter.

    Yet, when you demand explosives to be fired from a mech, you never mean the claw pack. So, don't pretend to use them interchangeably.
    Where did I demand it? I merely pointed out that Tinkers fire bombs and explosives from their mechs while engineers and hunters toss them. One method is technological, the other is primitive.

    Actually, it means quite a lot. That's the separation between Goblin and Gnomish tech - visually and functionally. If you want your Tinker to be using Goblin and Gnomish tech, you need to know how to distinguish between them. Meanwhile, unlike how you've been using it, it is not the difference between a Tinker and an Engineer.
    Again, in class terms the difference between Goblin and Gnome tech would be purely cosmetic, and that cosmetic difference more than likely wouldn't go past the mechs and the robot summons. So once again, those little lore tidbits are meaningless.

    Boo-hoo...
    Warlocks, Rogues and Priests took the design space of Demon Hunters in the class-line and it didn't prevent them from being added.
    Because Demon Hunters had something unique to offer. Blademasters do not.

  12. #3192
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If its not viable it doesn't matter.
    In your opinion.

    Because Demon Hunters had something unique to offer. Blademasters do not.
    What, exactly, did the demon hunters had to offer, mechanically, that was "unique"? Because, mechanically speaking, "turning into a demon" is not different than a shaman turning into an Ascendant, or, back in pre-Legion days, a warlock turning into a demon.

    And for clarification: before it was made into a playable class.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-01-20 at 03:48 AM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  13. #3193
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I believe Blizzard's approach in terms of the mounted heroes was that all classes should be on foot, and out of combat they can mount. Seems like a smart way to do balance. Considering I've never seen a thread petitioning for DKs to be permanently mounted, I would say it was a wise design decision.
    I'm not saying that it wasn't the right choice, but I'm saying that it's well within the realm of possibility that somebody, somewhere thought that Death Knight mounted combat was awesome and was disappointed it wasn't included, and that Blizzard made the concious choice to change what was present in WC3 to fit their new vision.

    Well these are the last three WoW expansion classes;



    Why would Blizzard suddenly abandon their design structure when they get to this one;


    ??
    And again, look at the Death Knight and realize that they did exactly that. So clearly it is possible that they would change some things.

    Death Knights got their ultimate ability which was an AoE raise undead ability, Monks got their ultimate where they split into three elemental forms, and Demon Hunters got their ultimate ability where they temporarily turned into a demon.

    Why wouldn't the Tinker get their ultimate ability of permanently piloting a mech?
    And every one of those abilities is rather different in WoW than it was in WC3. Not just numerically, not just to fit the mechanics of an MMO, but functional different. Animate Dead flat out doesn't exist in the Death Knight class. Storm, Earth and Fire doesn't let you control individual parts, not does it allow for ranged attacks. Metamorphosis doesn't add a ranged attack to the Demon Hunter. Two of the three are represented in the class (with Animate Dead having a very rough recreation), but all are changed. It is more than possible that even if included, a mech form could be changed as well. Making it not be permanent could be such a change.

    But again, Gazlowe's shredder isn't janky with sparks flying. The GMOD, AMOD, and Crowd Pummeler aren't janky with sparks flying either.
    But Goblin tech and Goblin mechs are often portrayed as janky, falling apart, sparky and less than pristine. There's absolutely a possibility that this would be the aesthetic of a Goblin mech.

    The claw pack transforms into a mech. They're one in the same.
    And it doesn't have to. It can be made to hold weapons, throw bombs, whack people on the head. It could actually be made to do some pretty seriously cool thing. It doesn't need to a tool to transform into a mech.

    [quote]Which actually makes sense, since the Tinker class would likely start from level 1 just like Monks. As for new land, you'd probably be looking at Undermine.

    Along with Gazlowe being used in promo material, I would be super surprised to see Undermine used as the new location for an expansion. I just can't see an expansion centered on a Goblin theme.

    They don't have to, but why would you abandon a concept that's prime for implementation that seems desired by the user base (just look what people went through to get Reeves for example]. Especially when you consider that the alternative amounts to nothing more than a supped up Hunter tossing bombs.
    Because WoW itself has moved far beyond it. There's no real reason to jump back to a near 20 year old game when you have over 16 years of developed story and atmosphere within this very game to draw from.

    The alternative is a dude that whips out a flamethrower to burn enemies, drops mines behind him and turrets beside him, rocket jump over enemies to shoot them from behind with a rocket launcher, unleash a handful of drones to attack, use a chainsaw on emenies that get too close, create explosive decoys to trick the enemy... Just plain do a slew of incredibly cool things with tech. Especially when you consider that the alternative is playing a game of glorified Robotech.

  14. #3194
    Blizzard just decided to make some potential classes into professions instead. This is why alchemist isn't a class, enchanter isn't a class, and engineer (tinker) isn't a class.

    If you want more combat focus for these professions, you should be trying to convince the devs to change their mind about removing player power from professions (which they should). Imagine if Piloted Combat Mode came out during the era of Synapse Springs, you would have had a 5 minute dps cooldown suit. Or tossing poison/frost vials for alchemy. Or CC illusions for enchanters.

    But they will never gut a profession to turn it into a class. That is an unrealistic expectation. People would be up in arms about all the gold they lost and years of work grinding recipes, etc.

  15. #3195
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If its not viable it doesn't matter.



    Where did I demand it? I merely pointed out that Tinkers fire bombs and explosives from their mechs while engineers and hunters toss them. One method is technological, the other is primitive.



    Again, in class terms the difference between Goblin and Gnome tech would be purely cosmetic, and that cosmetic difference more than likely wouldn't go past the mechs and the robot summons. So once again, those little lore tidbits are meaningless.



    Because Demon Hunters had something unique to offer. Blademasters do not.
    Actually, it does matter, in terms of lore.

    I wouldn't say they, merely, toss them:




    Well, not exactly. While the Goblin part of the Tinker will focus, mostly, on Explosives the Gnomish part would focus more on devices. Saying it is meaningless invalidates a huge part of the Tinker fantasy.
    And once again, it is not the difference between a Tinker and an Engineer.

    Oh, i beg to differ. Especially when you can't play a Samurai in-game - try as you might. It's kinda hypocritical, coming from someone who opposed and despised the addition of a Demon Hunter (even with a concept thread about it). They, literally, had nothing unique to add. Metamorphosis gameplay was in the Warlock. Agile, fast-paced slasher gameplay was in the Rogue. You're, suddenly, a fan just because it serves your argument.

  16. #3196
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Uh, if it has a different name, different gameplay, and a different purpose, then it's different than whatever you're comparing it to.
    Let's compare Warcraft 3's Death Knight hero unit's ultimate ability "Animate Dead" to World of Warcraft's Death Knight's "Army of the Dead" ability:
    • Different names: "Animate Dead" and "Army of the Dead".
    • Different functionalities:
      • Animate Dead:
        • Raises dead units;
        • Risen units have the exact same abilities they did while alive;
        • Risen units are immune to damage.
      • Army of the Dead:
        • Raises ghouls;
        • Ghouls have just basic auto-attacks;
        • Ghouls can be killed and have little health.
    • Different gameplay:
      • Animate Dead:
        • You can control the risen units.
      • Army of the Dead:
        • You cannot control the ghouls.

    Sounds to me that both abilities have different names and different gameplay. By your logic, they're not the same, hm?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  17. #3197
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,130
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I'm not saying that it wasn't the right choice, but I'm saying that it's well within the realm of possibility that somebody, somewhere thought that Death Knight mounted combat was awesome and was disappointed it wasn't included, and that Blizzard made the concious choice to change what was present in WC3 to fit their new vision.

    And again, look at the Death Knight and realize that they did exactly that. So clearly it is possible that they would change some things.
    Uh, the Death Knight wasn’t the first concept to have that removed. Again, Mage and Shaman heroes were also mounted.

    Did I forget to mention that they’re not abilities?


    And every one of those abilities is rather different in WoW than it was in WC3. Not just numerically, not just to fit the mechanics of an MMO, but functional different. Animate Dead flat out doesn't exist in the Death Knight class.
    True, instead of getting an ability that allows them to summon multiple undead minions, they get a spell to summon multiple undead minions....

    Storm, Earth and Fire doesn't let you control individual parts, not does it allow for ranged attacks.
    It allowed you to control individual parts at first, but I believed that was changed in Legion, 2 expansions after it first appeared.

    Metamorphosis doesn't add a ranged attack to the Demon Hunter. Two of the three are represented in the class (with Animate Dead having a very rough recreation), but all are changed. It is more than possible that even if included, a mech form could be changed as well. Making it not be permanent could be such a change.
    The Warlock version did. Blizzard took the DH version from HotS. So yes, while not EXACTLY the same, the theme of the ability remains the same. There’s no reason why a permanent mech form would cause Blizzard to scrap the concept altogether. Despite balance and technical issues, Blizzard was able to faithfully recreate the ultimates of the other expansion class additions.


    But Goblin tech and Goblin mechs are often portrayed as janky, falling apart, sparky and less than pristine. There's absolutely a possibility that this would be the aesthetic of a Goblin mech.
    But again, GMOD, Blackfuse’s shredder, and Gazlowe’s shredder aren’t janky, falling apart, etc. We would expect the Tinker to be more in line with those mechs over the Sky Golem.

    And it doesn't have to. It can be made to hold weapons, throw bombs, whack people on the head. It could actually be made to do some pretty seriously cool thing. It doesn't need to a tool to transform into a mech.
    The Claw Pack already launches bombs and whacks people on the head. It did that in WC3.

    Along with Gazlowe being used in promo material, I would be super surprised to see Undermine used as the new location for an expansion. I just can't see an expansion centered on a Goblin theme.
    Just because it takes place in Undermine doesn’t mean it needs to center on Goblins. Mists of Pandaria didn’t center on Pandarens for example.

    Because WoW itself has moved far beyond it. There's no real reason to jump back to a near 20 year old game when you have over 16 years of developed story and atmosphere within this very game to draw from.
    Uh, we just got Demon Hunters 4 years ago, and the current expansion revolves around Sylvanas with special appearances by Uther, Arthas, Vol’jon, Kelthuzad, and Karl’thas whom were all WC3 characters.

    How can you say they’ve moved far beyond it?

    The alternative is a dude that whips out a flamethrower to burn enemies, drops minebehind. him and turrets beside him, rocket jump over enemies to shoot them from behind with a rocket launcher, unleash a handful of drones to attack, use a chainsaw on emenies that get too close, create explosive decoys to trick the enemy... Just plain do a slew of incredibly cool things with tech. Especially when you consider that the alternative is playing a game of glorified Robotech.
    Gotta say, the mech sounds better, and far more interesting. That might be because the mech-based Tinker is actually Blizzard’s tech hero concept.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    Blizzard just decided to make some potential classes into professions instead. This is why alchemist isn't a class, enchanter isn't a class, and engineer (tinker) isn't a class.
    Then where aren’t the abilities from the Tinker and Alchemist hero within those professions?
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-01-20 at 12:55 PM.

  18. #3198
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    But again, GMOD, Blackfuse’s shredder, and Gazlowe’s shredder aren’t janky, falling apart, etc. We would expect the Tinker to be more in line with those mechs over the Sky Golem.

    Just because it takes place in Undermine doesn’t mean it needs to center on Goblins. Mists of Pandaria didn’t center on Pandarens for example.
    https://www.wowhead.com/item=166518/...deos:id=155128

    Do you see the sparks and electricity coming out of it? do you see the engine in the back vibrating and the tubes releasing black smoke?

    This is Blackfuses' mech shaking like hell:
    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=71504/si...se#modelviewer

    This is Gazlowe's Shredder shaking like hell:
    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=137311/g...er#modelviewer

    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=95664/ga...er#modelviewer

    Really?:
    Last edited by Unbelievable; 2021-01-20 at 01:23 PM.

  19. #3199
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Actually, it does matter, in terms of lore.
    Really? Where in lore is Reeves Combat Module mentioned? Where in lore does it say that Tinkers pilot Reeves? Where do we see Gazlowe, Mekkatorque, or Gallywix piloting a Reeves Combat Module?

    I wouldn't say they, merely, toss them:
    I don't think a Hunter shooting a Rocket from a bow really helps your case. Also a Rocket on a platform with a fuse is also rather primitive tech. The Chinese were doing that over a 1000 years ago.

    Well, not exactly. While the Goblin part of the Tinker will focus, mostly, on Explosives the Gnomish part would focus more on devices. Saying it is meaningless invalidates a huge part of the Tinker fantasy.
    And once again, it is not the difference between a Tinker and an Engineer.
    Yeah that would never happen. A class would have the same abilities regardless of race.

    Oh, i beg to differ. Especially when you can't play a Samurai in-game - try as you might. It's kinda hypocritical, coming from someone who opposed and despised the addition of a Demon Hunter (even with a concept thread about it). They, literally, had nothing unique to add. Metamorphosis gameplay was in the Warlock. Agile, fast-paced slasher gameplay was in the Rogue. You're, suddenly, a fan just because it serves your argument.
    Why would you need to play as a Samurai in a game where Japan doesn't exist? If you want to play as a barechested Orc swordsman, Arms Warrior is where you need to go. You even get the Blademaster's ultimate ability.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    https://www.wowhead.com/item=166518/...deos:id=155128

    Do you see the sparks and electricity coming out of it? do you see the engine in the back vibrating and the tubes releasing black smoke?
    Compare GMOD to Sky Golem;



    GMOD's animation is far smoother.

    Really?:
    Yes, really. We spent 5.2 dealing with the Thunder King on the Thunder Isle. 5.3 we left Pandaria entirely and dealt with the Darkspear Rebellion. 5.4 was the Siege of Orgrimmar where we dealt with Garrosh. Yeah, the Pandaren were there, but they were far from the center of attention. They were our allies while we were dealing with multiple threats. Even Chen was woefully underutilized, and he was on the cover!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    \
    Sounds to me that both abilities have different names and different gameplay. By your logic, they're not the same, hm?

    There's a difference between an ability being altered to fit into WoW's class structure and you attempting to argue that an item is a stand-in for an ability.

  20. #3200
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Really? Where in lore is Reeves Combat Module mentioned? Where in lore does it say that Tinkers pilot Reeves? Where do we see Gazlowe, Mekkatorque, or Gallywix piloting a Reeves Combat Module?



    I don't think a Hunter shooting a Rocket from a bow really helps your case. Also a Rocket on a platform with a fuse is also rather primitive tech. The Chinese were doing that over a 1000 years ago.



    Yeah that would never happen. A class would have the same abilities regardless of race.



    Why would you need to play as a Samurai in a game where Japan doesn't exist? If you want to play as a barechested Orc swordsman, Arms Warrior is where you need to go. You even get the Blademaster's ultimate ability.
    Reaves is a Shredder. Shredders are mechs used by Goblins.

    You said they were throwing it.
    Launching a Rocket from a bow does not make sense. It comes to show you how little they care about visual representation. Example: Rocket Barrage's description vs Its animation.

    Yes but, the Tinker is composed of Goblin and Gnomish engineering, respectively. Otherwise, it would just be a general technology class. Example: the differences in abilities between Mekkatorque and Gazlowe.

    I, already, showed you a few pages ago that Japan is represented in WoW. From the Night elven architecture (Pagoda and Torii gates) to the Subtelty Rogue ninja fantasy (Shuriken) to the Blademaster's Katana and banner.

    I could ask you the same thing. Why would you need to play as a Chinese Monk in a game where China didn't exist before MoP?

    Saying a Samurai doesn't fit within WoW is ignoring the base premise of WoW and its classes, that are based on old historical and mythological professions. That's the densest thing someone could claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Compare GMOD to Sky Golem;



    GMOD's animation is far smoother.



    Yes, really. We spent 5.2 dealing with the Thunder King on the Thunder Isle. 5.3 we left Pandaria entirely and dealt with the Darkspear Rebellion. 5.4 was the Siege of Orgrimmar where we dealt with Garrosh. Yeah, the Pandaren were there, but they were far from the center of attention. They were our allies while we were dealing with multiple threats. Even Chen was woefully underutilized, and he was on the cover!
    Yet, you ignore all the sparks, smoke and shaking engine parts i mentioned. Far from being a clean mech.

    Not to mention you, completely, ignored the parts where i showed you that Blackfuse's and Gazlowe's mechs shake just as much as the Sky Golem.

    You forget to mention the reasons why.
    Mists of Pandaria was received by the general audience as a bad expansion, mostly due to the existence of "cute and fluffy" Pandarens. They had to deviate from that theme in order to maintain their subscribers. You can see that in the revamp of the Jade Forest, during beta, into a more Alliance-Horde focused zone, due to players' outcry about it being just another pandaren zone.

    By the way, Throne of Thunder and Mogu, in general, are a Pandaren theme. They were their mortal enemies.

Posting Permissions

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