1. #4241
    I had a strange idea about dragon sworn as a "covenant like feature", dragons are all about out of ressources, but we their allies have always found ways to help them and grow stronger.
    giving us a spark of their power to nurture and have it grow in power inside us (aka the covenant like player power progression, just like artefacts weapons or the heart of azeroth) and in the end of the expansion, when the baddie is done, we have a cutscene like when we drained Sargeras sword, but instead the dragons collect the power they lent to players, revitalizing the flights and creating each a new aspect.

  2. #4242
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    More than likely Gazlowe since he's inside a mech.
    "More than likely" is not an answer, since it's nothing but guesswork. I asked which character uses that ability considering the WoWHead page does not attribute that to any character in the game. So I'll repeat my question: which character uses that ability?

    No there isn't.
    Sorry, but it's lore. The Mechagon intro cinematic for the Alliance shows humans and night elves in the tinker's team, and he even calls them "the best and the brightest".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Who should I believe? You or the game?
    And yet you still go against what in-game abilities do or say when it contradicts your claims, like when you said that "it's shadow magic what creates soul shards" yet we have a lot of fire spells actually doing that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And back to the point; If classes aren't reliant on previous heroes, what that developer said shouldn't be an issue. They can just make up a class on the spot.
    Wrong. Again, the existence of a character or not has nothing to do with a class "fitting the expansion's story being told". Blizzard said it, black on white: "a lot of it is informed by setting and story." Notice the complete lack of "we need a character to base the class on" in that entire statement.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    According to leaks, it was the Tinker class. It may have been scrapped because it didn't fit the setting of this expansion.
    Oh, please. Blizzard has gone on record to say that they come up with story first then class second, so your claim there is nothing but bullshit. There is no way with them going "let's add a tinker" first and then deciding on the story later.

    Or are you going to claim that the entire expansion's story and theme have been COMPLETELY REWRITTEN to completely remove any and all hints of involvement of tinkers?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You can't create an iconic character before an expansion comes out. That character has to be iconic long before the expansion is released.
    Except for the monks... based off a character that few people even knew of, and then made fun of by many when the expansion was announced...
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  3. #4243
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I call it a crapshoot because every time lore is brought up, Teriz disregards it if it doesn't fit his narrative. He will be adamant about goblins and tinkers being the only races that should get tinkers because the lore better supports only those races being tinkers. It's a wrong assessment but he won't listen. He will also utterly disregard lore in favor of game mechanics and say the lore doesn't matter because of mechanics. Example being he said shadow magic and fel magic both generate soul shards in game so clearly that's what canon. I showed him multiple times that it's only fel users than use souls for power in lore and he disregarded it because of game mechanics.

    I simply said that Blizzard will flush that entire lore down the toilet if they're bringing in a class using Chromatic dragons and no one will think twice about it. I even gave Demon Hunters to you as an example of them doing exactly that to shoehorn a class into the game. You guys obsessing over the ins and outs of lore are wasting your time. If game mechanics need to be put in place to insure an enjoyable experience for the player, Blizzard will disregard it without a second thought. Using lore to restrict a potential gameplay addition is silly and a waste of time.

    Now when it comes to Tinkers, I said keep their races restricted in order to provide more potential options for the class in terms of unique appearance and perks. Sort of what you see with Druids and Demon Hunters in that they get unique models for their individual races. For example, if Blizzard restricts the Tinker class to Goblins, Gnomes and their allied races, you could see Alliance Tinkers getting Gnomish style technology, and Horde Tinkers getting Goblin style technology. Sort of what you saw with the Island Expedition teams. If Blizzard wants to make a generic one size fits all class like Hunters, Warriors, Monks, Mages, and other such classes, then yeah, they'll spread the Tinker concept to as many races as they want. However, I don't see them going in that direction. I see 4 races minimum, and 10 races maximum, with 4 being the more likely number.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeenith View Post
    I had a strange idea about dragon sworn as a "covenant like feature", dragons are all about out of ressources, but we their allies have always found ways to help them and grow stronger.
    giving us a spark of their power to nurture and have it grow in power inside us (aka the covenant like player power progression, just like artefacts weapons or the heart of azeroth) and in the end of the expansion, when the baddie is done, we have a cutscene like when we drained Sargeras sword, but instead the dragons collect the power they lent to players, revitalizing the flights and creating each a new aspect.
    Yeah, that's a possibility. Honestly it's probably the more likely outcome over a dragon-based class tbh. Like I said, Dragonsworn in the TTRPG is almost exactly like the Covenant system.

    - - - Updated - - -

    In the end, the Tinker class should embody this;



    And not be a generic tech class.

  4. #4244
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    In the end, the Tinker class should embody this;



    And not be a generic tech class.
    How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?

    Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.

    If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks so it has appeal to those who like those concepts not just liking the pandaren) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-06 at 02:37 PM.

  5. #4245
    I honestly would just prefer they expanded some more classes to 4 specs.

    Shaman needs to have a spec for each "element". I don't know why this hasn't been done, quite frankly.

    Water = Resto
    Fire = Elemental
    Wind = Enhance
    Earth = a mail wearing tank spec finally

    DKs could be reworked to have 4 specs based on the 4 horsemen.

  6. #4246
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?

    Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.

    If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks so it has appeal to those who like those concepts not just liking the pandaren) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.
    Letting vulpera be tinkers makes absolutely no sense. Vulpera are nomads that live in a desert. They don't really know much at all about technology.

  7. #4247
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?
    We don't know how large the fanbase for Gnomes and Goblins actually is because there isn't a class that reflects their racial lore and that keeps their racial numbers down. I for example don't have a Gnome or Goblin character currently, but I would immediately roll one (or two) for a Tinker class.

    In addition, there is no technology class in WoW, and there is a base of gamers who like playing tech-based classes in RPG games. So in short, we simply don't know what the potential base for this class is, but it should be substantial, especially if the class is well designed and interesting. I think the class will be interesting by default simply because of the abilities available to it via HotS and WC3.

    Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.
    I disagree that people wouldn't get excited over such a class. Consider what most people in our community are asking for; A ranged class. A class that can rival Hunters for weapons. A new healing spec. Ranged tanking. Something that doesn't take abilities from existing classes. A class that isn't edgy or dark. etc.

    You put out a Tinker class that checks all or most of those boxes, and people will get excited about it.

    If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.
    Nah I disagree. Druids for example isn't open to a lot of races and it's the most popular class in WoW. Demon Hunters seem to be doing okay with only being available to two races. At minimum you're looking at 4 Tinker races, that's already more than Demon Hunters. At max you'd be looking at 10 races, and that would put it ahead of Druids. Again, you limit it race-wise in order to allow more race-based customization, which is also very popular among the userbase. For example, limit it to Goblins, Gnomes, Vulpera, Mechagnomes, LF Draenei and Nightborne, and I could see a situation where you could have Goblins using Goblin tech, have Vulpera use Junker tech, have Gnomes and Mechagnomes using Gnome/Mechagnome tech, and LF Draenei and Nightborne having artificer tech. You do something like that, and people won't care that it's limited to only 6 races.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Letting vulpera be tinkers makes absolutely no sense. Vulpera are nomads that live in a desert. They don't really know much at all about technology.
    We have Tinkerin' Taiji;

    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=138151/tinkerin-taji

    And we have multiple examples of Vulpera who have seemingly left the desert and have no issue picking up guns;

    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=137527/vulpera-gunner
    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=131770/v...ities;mode:lfr

  8. #4248
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    We don't know how large the fanbase for Gnomes and Goblins actually is because there isn't a class that reflects their racial lore and that keeps their racial numbers down. I for example don't have a Gnome or Goblin character currently, but I would immediately roll one (or two) for a Tinker class.
    Are they going to design a class entirely around 2 unpopular races on the off chance it boosts the Gnome/Goblin population?

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    In addition, there is no technology class in WoW, and there is a base of gamers who like playing tech-based classes in RPG games. So in short, we simply don't know what the potential base for this class is, but it should be substantial, especially if the class is well designed and interesting. I think the class will be interesting by default simply because of the abilities available to it via HotS and WC3.
    I have no doubt there is an a potential audience for a technology class, artificer has been a D&D class and other fantasy video games have featured such an archetype but how much do you think that audience crosses over with the audience who like wacky gnome/goblin stuff? do they want robot chickens, deth lazors, clockwork midgets, oversized rockets, shrink rays ect or do they want this:




    Just because people may desire a technology class doesn't mean they also want the baggage of it also being about wacky gnome/goblin shit

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I disagree that people wouldn't get excited over such a class. Consider what most people in our community are asking for; A ranged class. A class that can rival Hunters for weapons. A new healing spec. Ranged tanking. Something that doesn't take abilities from existing classes. A class that isn't edgy or dark. etc.

    You put out a Tinker class that checks all or most of those boxes, and people will get excited about it.
    Like i said you're adding way to much additional baggage by saying those all those things have to be expressed in a way that's whimsical and wacky, it would certainly kill my interest in such a class because i have a disinterest in Gnomes/Goblins same way Demon Hunter didn't interest me because having to play a Night/Blood elf didn't interest me, just because it's not whimsical and wacky doesn't automatically make it dark and edgy thats a complete false dichotomy, majority of classes we have are completely neutral in regards to tone and up to ones individual taste in race and transmog to determine where it falls on tone, my Rogue looks like a swashbuckling scoundrel but someone elses can looks like a brooding assassin, i wasn't forced into a particular tone and neither was the other person by the mere selection of class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Nah I disagree. Druids for example isn't open to a lot of races and it's the most popular class in WoW. Demon Hunters seem to be doing okay with only being available to two races. At minimum you're looking at 4 Tinker races, that's already more than Demon Hunters. At max you'd be looking at 10 races, and that would put it ahead of Druids. Again, you limit it race-wise in order to allow more race-based customization, which is also very popular among the userbase. For example, limit it to Goblins, Gnomes, Vulpera, Mechagnomes, LF Draenei and Nightborne, and I could see a situation where you could have Goblins using Goblin tech, have Vulpera use Junker tech, have Gnomes and Mechagnomes using Gnome/Mechagnome tech, and LF Draenei and Nightborne having artificer tech. You do something like that, and people won't care that it's limited to only 6 races.
    Druid is also open to Night Elves one of the most popular races in the game in general and Worgen, Zandalari, Trolls, Tauren aren't too shaby in terms of population, it's also a more diverse range of options than just various comic relief midgets so even someone who doesn't like a particular races aesthetic still has potentially something they like.

    If you're going to lift it in to include LF draenei and Nightborne you might as well lift it to include Orcs, Dwarfs, DI dwarves, Mag'har, regular Draenei and Blood elves since all of those have also shown similar tech inclinations (or magitek in the draenei and Belf's case), additionally if you're already including non-goblins/gnomes/vulpera you kind of have to drop the more wacky stuff since that stuff doesn't really fit the more serious takes on technology/magitek we're seen from LF draenei and Nightborne.

    Either the class is about wacky gnome/goblin stuff and is exclusive to them (and other comic relief midget races) or it's not and it's a more serious (if perhaps generic) take on a tech-class thats open a far more diverse and appealing range of races.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-06 at 03:39 PM.

  9. #4249
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    We don't know how large the fanbase for Gnomes and Goblins actually is because there isn't a class that reflects their racial lore and that keeps their racial numbers down. I for example don't have a Gnome or Goblin character currently, but I would immediately roll one (or two) for a Tinker class.

    In addition, there is no technology class in WoW, and there is a base of gamers who like playing tech-based classes in RPG games. So in short, we simply don't know what the potential base for this class is, but it should be substantial, especially if the class is well designed and interesting. I think the class will be interesting by default simply because of the abilities available to it via HotS and WC3.



    I disagree that people wouldn't get excited over such a class. Consider what most people in our community are asking for; A ranged class. A class that can rival Hunters for weapons. A new healing spec. Ranged tanking. Something that doesn't take abilities from existing classes. A class that isn't edgy or dark. etc.

    You put out a Tinker class that checks all or most of those boxes, and people will get excited about it.



    Nah I disagree. Druids for example isn't open to a lot of races and it's the most popular class in WoW. Demon Hunters seem to be doing okay with only being available to two races. At minimum you're looking at 4 Tinker races, that's already more than Demon Hunters. At max you'd be looking at 10 races, and that would put it ahead of Druids. Again, you limit it race-wise in order to allow more race-based customization, which is also very popular among the userbase. For example, limit it to Goblins, Gnomes, Vulpera, Mechagnomes, LF Draenei and Nightborne, and I could see a situation where you could have Goblins using Goblin tech, have Vulpera use Junker tech, have Gnomes and Mechagnomes using Gnome/Mechagnome tech, and LF Draenei and Nightborne having artificer tech. You do something like that, and people won't care that it's limited to only 6 races.

    - - - Updated - - -



    We have Tinkerin' Taiji;

    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=138151/tinkerin-taji

    And we have multiple examples of Vulpera who have seemingly left the desert and have no issue picking up guns;

    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=137527/vulpera-gunner
    https://www.wowhead.com/npc=131770/v...ities;mode:lfr
    Anybody can pick up a fun and pull the trigger. Vulpera, for the most part, have absolutely no idea how technology works so there is no legitimate reason to campaign for vulpera tinkers just because they use the goblin skeleton. You really need to stop insisting gnomes and goblins are the only races that can be tinkers. Making the least popular races into a brand new class would be a horrendous mistake.

    As for not knowing what the playerbase is for a race, that's nonsense. We know exactly how many of each race are played. so those very small minority might have fun but literally everyone else would just be pissed that a new class got restricted to shit races.

  10. #4250
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    Are they going to design a class on the off chance it boosts the Gnome/Goblin population?
    I think they'd design a class on the off chance that they're missing a significant RPG archetype in their class lineup.

    I have no doubt there is an a potential audience for a technology class, artificer has been a D&D class and other fantasy video games have featured such an archetype but how much do you think that audience crosses over with the audience who like wacky gnome/goblin stuff? do they want robot chickens, deth lazors, clockwork midgets, oversized rockets, shrink rays ect or do they want this:
    Just because people may desire a technology class doesn't mean they also want the baggage of it also being about wacky gnome/goblin shit
    Blizzard tends to like to have their own take on things, so you're not going to see the sort of thing you see in FF or D&D. And yeah, I think there is an appeal for the whacky technology of Goblins and Gnomes. Obviously there's a point that would be too much, but I think that point is pretty far and the WC3 abilities and prominent tech characters haven't crossed that bar yet.

    Like i said you're adding way to much additional baggage by saying those all those things have to be expressed in a way that's whimsical and wacky, it would certainly kill my interest in such a class, just because it's not whimsical doesn't automatically make it dark and edgy.
    I don't believe it's baggage. If the class is interesting and fun to play people will play it, simple as that. Now if you think something like this is too much for you;



    Then yeah, the Tinker class might not be for you.


    Druid is also open to Night Elves one of the most popular races in the game in general and Worgen, Zandalari, Trolls, Tauren aren't to shaby in terms of population, it's also a more diverse range of options than just various comic relief midgets so even someone who doesn't like a particular races aesthetic still has potentially something they like.
    Yeah but here's the thing; Druid drives the population of all of those races. The top class by far in Worgen, Zandalari, Trolls, and Tauren is the Druid class. So is it the races, or the classes available to them?

    If you're going to lift it in to include LF draenei and Nightborne you might as well lift it to include Orcs, Dwarfs, DI dwarves, Mag'har, regular Draenei and Blood elves since all of those have also shown similar tech inclinations (or magitek in the draenei and Belf's case), additionally if you're already including non-goblins/gnomes/vulpera you kind of have to drop the more wacky stuff since that stuff doesn't really fit the more serious takes on technology/magitek we're seen from LF draenei and Nightborne
    When I said 10 maximum, I was including Orcs and Dwarves. The other direction this could go is making it straight mechanical with Gnomes, Goblins, Orc, Dwarves, and their allied races. That brings the racial total to 8. Again, it all depends on how Blizzard wants to structure the class. Do they want to go mech? Do they want to make it gun-based? Do they want claw packs? Do they want the OW Trio (Mech, Turret, Bio Guns)? Etc. The thing is, the more races you add, the less individual racial customization you get, and the more generic the class becomes. You limit this to four races and there's a chance you can get individual tech for each race. You expand it to 10-16 races and everyone is going to have the same stuff, and some of the shine is lost.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Anybody can pick up a fun and pull the trigger. Vulpera, for the most part, have absolutely no idea how technology works so there is no legitimate reason to campaign for vulpera tinkers just because they use the goblin skeleton. You really need to stop insisting gnomes and goblins are the only races that can be tinkers. Making the least popular races into a brand new class would be a horrendous mistake.
    Tinkerin' Taji sells an arclight spanner. Arclight Spanners require some decent knowledge of engineering, and Taji is in the middle of nowhere.

    As for not knowing what the playerbase is for a race, that's nonsense. We know exactly how many of each race are played. so those very small minority might have fun but literally everyone else would just be pissed that a new class got restricted to shit races.
    As I've said before, basing the success of a future class on the current population of a race is silly. Trolls for example had rather abysmal population numbers until they got Druids in Cataclysm. Now I think something like 40% of Troll players are Druids. Take Druids out of the equation, and Trolls would be one of the least played races in WoW. I'm pretty sure the same applies to Worgen, I think about 35-40% of Worgen players are Druids as well.

    So instead of looking at the current racial population, consider what a class that has similar benefits that the Druid class offers could do for the populations of Goblins, Gnomes and Mechagnomes. A mech-based Tinker would have the benefits of the Druid class, yet not require any of the Druid class' abilities, and solve the issues that many players supposedly have with Goblins and Gnomes in general.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-02-06 at 04:05 PM.

  11. #4251
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    When I said 10 maximum, I was including Orcs and Dwarves. The other direction this could go is making it straight mechanical with Gnomes, Goblins, Orc, Dwarves, and their allied races. That brings the racial total to 8. Again, it all depends on how Blizzard wants to structure the class. Do they want to go mech? Do they want to make it gun-based? Do they want claw packs? Do they want the OW Trio (Mech, Turret, Bio Guns)? Etc. The thing is, the more races you add, the less individual racial customization you get, and the more generic the class becomes. You limit this to four races and there's a chance you can get individual tech for each race. You expand it to 10-16 races and everyone is going to have the same stuff, and some of the shine is lost.
    I don't see the problem with it being more than 10 races
    Alliance: Gnome, Mechagnome, Dwarf, Dark Iron, Draenei, Lightforged
    Horde: Goblin, Vulpera, Orc, Mag'har, Blood Elf, Nightborne

    Thats 12 races, equally distributed faction wise and can work with 3 animation sets for alliance races (gnome tech), horde races (goblin tech) and magitek races (draenei, blood elves, nightborne, lightforged) and an individual mech design (which would be a single design so it's a one third of the work that goes into a druid race). distribution is on par with Shaman and Warlock.

    No one is suggesting a Tinker class should be like warriors, rogues, hunters or monks in that practically everyone can be one, a number of races don't fit a technology themed class like Night Elves, Tauren, Trolls, Pandaren or Worgen.

    As for the argument about adding more races causing it to lose shine, this is the same argument people made when Paladins got expanded beyond their initial far more specific original concept (holy light worshipping knights) with the addition of Tauren and later Zandalari paladins, it's bad argument when it was made there and it's a bad argument here, nothing about a more diverse range of options sullies or ruins any particular version, Human paladins weren't ruined by the addition of Tauren Paladins, Blood Elf paladins weren't ruined by the addition of Zandalari paladins, its a different conception of what a "Paladin" is but still holds true to the basic concept (holy warrior) the addition of Draenei Tinkers doesn't damage the purity of the original Goblin Tinker concept, it just gives a different depiction of what being a "Tinker" is while still being about the basic concept (technology)
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-06 at 04:21 PM.

  12. #4252
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Not the classes, the characters they’re based on; Arthas, Chen, and Illidan. All lore characters from WC3.
    Ohhh, you're saying the characters and their classes need to be represented in lore before being a possibility in game? Cause, that's a mix between true and untrue tbh.

  13. #4253
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    I don't see the problem with it being more than 10 races
    Alliance: Gnome, Mechagnome, Dwarf, Dark Iron, Draenei, Lightforged
    Horde: Goblin, Vulpera, Orc, Mag'har, Blood Elf, Nightborne

    Thats 12 races, equally distributed faction wise and can work with 3 animation sets for alliance races (gnome tech), horde races (goblin tech) and magitek races (draenei, blood elves, nightborne, lightforged) and individual mech design (which would be a single design so it's a quarter of the work that goes into a druid race). distribution is on par with Shaman and Warlock.

    As for the argument about adding more races causing it to lose shine, this is the same argument people made when Paladins got expanded beyond their initial far more specific original concept (holy light worshipping knights) with the addition of Tauren and later Zandalari paladins, it's bad argument when it was made there and it's a bad argument here, nothing about a more diverse range of options sullies or ruins any particular version, Human paladins weren't ruined by the addition of Tauren Paladins, Blood Elf paladins weren't ruined by the addition of Zandalari paladins, its a different conception of what a "Paladin" is but still holds true to the basic concept (holy warrior) the addition of Draenei Tinkers doesn't damage the purity of the original Goblin Tinker concept, it just gives a different depiction of what being a "Tinker" is while still being about the basic concept (technology)
    Yeah, but Paladins are only available to 8 races, 3 of which are Allied races.

    You're pushing for 12 races for a Tinker class, a class that honestly should have less races available to it than Paladin since more races in WoW utilize the light than technology.

    Draenei aren't really Tinkers though, they're artificers. Artificers don't use mechanical technology, they use Naaru technology which is crystal based. So if a player rolls a Draenei Tinker hoping to use technology more akin to the Draenei and they end up seeing all this Goblin-style tech everywhere, they're going to be disappointed.

    People like to bring up Monks, but people really should remember that Blizzard pretty much forced every race into a Pandaren-style class. Would that work for Goblin tech? I'm not so sure. I mean stuff like this;



    is something I can't see on many races outside of Goblins and Gnomes.

  14. #4254
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And the pattern would have held if we didn’t already have a death class in WoW.
    Not necessarily true. This really assumes that they would not create another Death themed class when we already have examples of classes with similar themes. It assumes that the class itself would have to be death themed, when it could be something that would be great at combating death instead (a life themed class, for example). It also assumes that even if they had used a different theme for the expansion that it would have opened up the possibility of a new class. It's entirely possible we weren't gonna get a class regardless of the theme.

    After the Tinker I think you’re looking at prestige classes based on the current classes, or possibly even class skins. Consider that after the Tinker, pretty much every RPG archetype will have been filled.
    I'm a big proponent of Class Skins, so I can't really argue there. Though, to be fair, I think that a class skin would cover the Tinker perfectly fine, so I could see that being their next go to step when it comes to covering the bases.

    I really have no idea why Blizzard does it that way. However based on the precedent set, it’s rather obvious that they’re doing it that way.
    Nothing says that they do it this way though. Just noticing a pattern with a sample size of three doesn't mean much, especially when one of those three is a nebulous connection at best. It's not so much that "Blizzard does it that way" as it is that "you see a pattern and assume that Blizzard does it that way".

  15. #4255
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Yeah, but Paladins are only available to 8 races, 3 of which are Allied races.

    You're pushing for 12 races for a Tinker class, a class that honestly should have less races available to it than Paladin since more races in WoW utilize the light than technology.
    And my list there was 6 core races and 6 allied races many of which are just their counterparts.

    Shaman was also initially available 4 races in single faction because it's original concept was based on the various horde spellcaster units in WC3 and now includes dwarves, chime worshipping space goats and naval themed humans, that didn't ruin the original concept, the Orc shaman is still there for those that like that specific vision of what a "Shaman" is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Draenei aren't really Tinkers though, they're artificers. Artificers don't use mechanical technology, they use Naaru technology which is crystal based. So if a player rolls a Draenei Tinker hoping to use technology more akin to the Draenei and they end up seeing all this Goblin-style tech everywhere, they're going to be disappointed.
    This is just semantics, it's still technology just using a different power source, they still design and build it (they got the Exodar from the Naaru, the Draenei have had cystal technology from before they left Argus). This argument also doesn't apply to Dwarves or Orcs since they use literally the same technology as Gnomes and Goblins, just less wacky.

    This is also assuming it's based purely on the idea of wacky Gnome/Goblin shit instead of something more general or even having different visuals based on race (class skins are a fairly popular concept and distinct visuals for different Tinker races could be a good way to show off the concept)

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    People like to bring up Monks, but people really should remember that Blizzard pretty much forced every race into a Pandaren-style class. Would that work for Goblin tech? I'm not so sure. I mean stuff like this
    Difference is that the Monk is based on fairly stock martial arts/wuxia concepts. The Drunken Boxer (brewmaster), The shaolin/bare handed martial artist (Windwalker) and Mysticism (Mistweaver) the most Pandaren specific it gets is the Mists and August Celestials (who are also based on the cardinal guardians so not even that wow specific) otherwise it's a fairly stock martial artist, it's just pandaren in the context of WoW's universe, it has some baggage of being the "pandaren class" but i could show it to someone who doesn't know about the pandaren whos just a fan of Wuxia or Kung Fu movies and they'd think it's cool and recognizable the fact that it's attached to fat panda people doesn't impact them because they can be other races and be 90% divorced from anything to do with the Pandaren.

    What if i tell someone who likes say the artificer from D&D or the engineer from guild wars "WoW has an engineer/artificer class" I show them it and it's about wacky chicken bombs, clockwork midgets, shrink rays and is exlcusive to comic relief midget races? there is a significant difference is the degree of baggage your attaching to each class in terms of visuals/aesthetic since your also attaching a very specific tone to it.
    Last edited by Imperator4321; 2021-02-06 at 04:56 PM.

  16. #4256
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I can't even take you seriously anymore. It's a fucking race, dude. That'd be like making murloc into a class. Do you really not see how fucking asinine your comments about making dragons a class is? BLIZZARD HASN'T MADE DRAGONS A CLASS.

    Malkorok and Nefarian. They created Chromatus and they're both dead. Do you even fucking read the lore or do you just read bits and pieces before making your ignorant comments? What you're proposing is fucking stupid through and through. I feel like you're just posting satire now. There is no way you can actually be serious about making dragons a class when they're ALREADY a race. A race that is going extinct because they're all sterile, mind you.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I'll answer the question for him. No, he does not actually read the lore. He reads small snippets then makes his asinine comments based on fractions of lore. The lore isn't obscure in the slightest when it comes to Chromatus. It's pretty well documented in Twilight of the Aspects. But the more he talks about making a race into a class, the more we really need to start disregarding all of his posts from here on out.
    I think you're not being creative enough with how Dragons could be both a race AND a class.

    In WoW, Dragons have humanoid disguises based on the Mortal races.

    So, in a Dragon-based Class - Race-choice is merely the disguise chosen by the player Dragon.

    So a Gnome Dragonsworn is how you get something like Chromie, Night Elf Dragonsworn for something like Ysera, etc.

  17. #4257
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Not necessarily true. This really assumes that they would not create another Death themed class when we already have examples of classes with similar themes. It assumes that the class itself would have to be death themed, when it could be something that would be great at combating death instead (a life themed class, for example). It also assumes that even if they had used a different theme for the expansion that it would have opened up the possibility of a new class. It's entirely possible we weren't gonna get a class regardless of the theme.
    I really don't see them creating another death/shadow class. Consider that pretty much the entire spectrum of death is pretty much covered by existing classes to the point that we're even seeing overlap of shadow-based themes in our current class lineup. Despite what some argue here, necromantic themes are covered quite well by DKs and Warlocks. Other aspects of death are covered by Shadow Priests (Madness, Insanity, darkness) and Demon Hunters (Sacrifice, Vengeance, hatred). We have 9.5 shadow based specs compared to 7 nature specs, 1.5 Arcane specs, 1.5 fire specs, 1.5 Frost specs, 4.5 Holy specs, etc. I don't think we really need more.

    I'm a big proponent of Class Skins, so I can't really argue there. Though, to be fair, I think that a class skin would cover the Tinker perfectly fine, so I could see that being their next go to step when it comes to covering the bases.
    What class would be able to cover a Tinker as a class skin and handle its WC3 and HotS abilities?

    Nothing says that they do it this way though. Just noticing a pattern with a sample size of three doesn't mean much, especially when one of those three is a nebulous connection at best. It's not so much that "Blizzard does it that way" as it is that "you see a pattern and assume that Blizzard does it that way".
    Well to be fair, all classes contain WC3 abilities, and the majority (if not all) WoW classes have their roots in WC3.

  18. #4258
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,201
    Come on, @Teriz. I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions:
    • Which character in WoW uses "robo goblin defense"?
    • Why do you say there are no human and night elf tinkers in the lore when we see them in the Alliance Mechagon intro cinematic?
    • Why do you say you "trust the game" when you go against what the game shows us with fire magic creating soul shards?

    And more, which you can see here.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  19. #4259
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    How much of an audience do you think exists for this kind of zany/whimsical Gnome and Goblin centric Tinker class? do you think Blizzard would design an entire class (and by extension an expansion) for the very small subset of the fanbase that likes Gnomes & Goblins?

    Demon Hunter worked because it's the "illidan class" Illidan is up there with Arthas and Sylvanas in terms of popularity, hes an S tier character. Gazlowe and Mekkatoque are D tier at best, people would not get excited over a "Mekkatoque class" or a "Gazlowe class" especially if it was Gnome/Goblin exclusive, it would be met with derision and mockery at best or utter disdain at worst.

    If such a class would exist it would need to be more open to other races the same way Monk was open despite being so pandaren themed (even then i'd argue Monk can be more divorced since it's concepts are based on martial arts archetypes and asian style monasticism/mysticism which are fairly standard concepts for fantasy monks so it has appeal to those who like those concepts not just liking the pandaren) , Gnome/Goblin exclusivity just would not work as a concept even if you expanded it to include Vulpera.
    History has shown us that classes are popular based on their performance and aesthetics are just of secondary nature. We see the same shit with covenants right now.
    Monks weren't initially popular, because they were quite weak and only later on in MoP they became really good. It was actually WoD were they were actually truly an OP class. DH and DK were op af in their beginnings (and easy to master).

    So if Tinkers were exclusive to Gnomes/Goblins they would still be a popular choice if they were similarly like DH's an OP and easy to master class early on.

    That being said, I think that Tinkers should be available to more races overall, though I do agree that their "culture" and aesthetics should be gnomish/goblin in nature (just like monks are tied to pandaria) and not just a "generic" engineer type class. So let's say a human tinker would be someone who learned it from gnomes and was probably part of some gnomish tinker faction.

    Vulpera as a tinker candidate makes absolutely no sense and I am not quite sure why people keep suggesting them. Just because they are a small race, doesn't mean that they are any similar to gnomes and goblins or that they're technologically advanced.
    Quite ironically, Vulpera Tinkers are most likely the main reason why some people want tinkers to be Gnome/Goblin exclusive as if even a "dumb" race like Vulpera could be one, then every race can and then the whole concept of that class would just be boring and generic.
    If I were to play a generic class, then I'd pick a hunter.

    Also regarding monks: My main is one and even though I am not a fan of eastern asian culture at all, I still very much like their pandaria aesthetics and their lore being rooted to the pandaren history. If they were just a martial arts class, then it would be extremely boring.
    Last edited by RobertMugabe; 2021-02-06 at 06:13 PM.

  20. #4260
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator4321 View Post
    And my list there was 6 core races and 6 allied races many of which are just their counterparts.
    Yeah, Paladin have 5 core races and 3 allied races. So you're saying a Tinker class should be more widespread than Paladin when less races are shown to use technology.

    Shaman was also initially available 4 races in single faction because it's original concept was based on the various horde spellcaster units in WC3 and now includes dwarves, chime worshipping space goats and naval themed humans, that didn't ruin the original concept, the Orc shaman is still there for those that like that specific vision of what a "Shaman" is.
    Actually Shaman were only available to 3 races, Orc, Tauren, and Trolls. Yes it was eventually expanded, but it was expanded over multiple expansions, not all at first. In TBC Draenei became Shaman so at that point there were only 4 Shaman races. Then in Cataclysm Dwarves and Goblins could be Shaman, brining the total to 6. So again, a very gradual increases over time as the lore expanded.

    Again it should be noted that Druids only have 4 core races and 3 allied races, yet it is the most popular class in the game.

    This is just semantics, it's still technology just using a different power source, they still design and build it (they got the Exodar from the Naaru, the Draenei have had cystal technology from before they left Argus). This argument also doesn't apply to Dwarves or Orcs since they use literally the same technology as Gnomes and Goblins, just less wacky.
    It's not just semantics, it's look and style as well;



    That's not something that Gnomes and Goblins build.

    This is also assuming it's based purely on the idea of wacky Gnome/Goblin shit instead of something more general or even having different visuals based on race (class skins are a fairly popular concept and distinct visuals for different Tinker races could be a good way to show off the concept)
    Well to be fair, the Tinker concept in of itself is based on the Goblin Tinker hero. So yes it will be based on Goblin shit, with some Gnome icing on top.

    Difference is that the Monk is based on fairly stock martial arts/wuxia concepts. The Drunken Boxer (brewmaster), The shaolin/bare handed martial artist (Windwalker) and Mysticism (Mistweaver) the most Pandaren specific it gets is the Mists and August Celestials (who are also based on the cardinal guardians so not even that wow specific) otherwise it's a fairly stock martial artist, it's just pandaren in the context of WoW's universe, it has some baggage of being the "pandaren class" but i could show it to someone who doesn't know about the pandaren whos just a fan of Wuxia or Kung Fu movies and they'd think it's cool and recognizable the fact that it's attached to fat panda people doesn't impact them because they can be other races and be 90% divorced from anything to do with the Pandaren.

    What if i tell someone who likes say the artificer from D&D or the engineer from guild wars "WoW has an engineer/artificer class" I show them it and it's about wacky chicken bombs, clockwork midgets, shrink rays and is exlcusive to comic relief midget races? there is a significant difference is the degree of baggage your attaching to each class in terms of visuals/aesthetic since your also attaching a very specific tone to it.
    Again, Blizzard likes to put their own spin on their concepts, and this has especially been true with the expansion classes. It is highly unlikely you're going to get a generic D&D class, and it's highly more likely you're going to get a Gnome/Goblin themed class. As it should be, since it is those two races that are the most technology influenced races in the game and always have been. I think your friend would be just fine.

Posting Permissions

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