If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Teriz]

1. But you're trying to use the verbatim definition of what a Tinker is from WC3 to solidify your point. The argument can't be "we have to use WC3 as the ultimate source of info on this, unless it isn't quite that so it's different."

2. There is no real evidence backing that up though.

1. No, I'm just using the lore from WC3 to point out that the Tinker is an inventor.
2. The Gameplay is the evidence. Tinker abilities in WoW are far more powerful than Engineering items.

I don't see why not though. If every other base class can handle multiple archetypes, I seriously don't see why a Tinker class would be so different that it incorporates "genius inventor" and no other archetype.

Well you need to divide the classes between classic classes and expansion classes. Classic classes tended to mix hero concepts together and be more traditional type of classes (Warriors, Rogues, Mages, Priests, etc.). This is why so many people erroneously clamor for classes like Blademasters or Wardens, not seemingly realizing that Blademasters were just Warriors with some Rogue abilities, and Wardens were essentially Rogues by design.

Expansion classes were developed a bit differently. Expansion classes tended to be based on a singular WC3 hero and strongly incorporated its theme throughout the class. Death Knights strongly incorporated the Necromancer theme from the hero unit. The Monk absorbed the themes and abilities of the Brewmaster hero. The Demon Hunter is self explanatory. These classes tended to be highly Blizzard-styled, and not really based on classic classes, but on Blizzard's particular take on a type of class. This is why people clamor for a Necromancer class, seemingly ignoring that the DK is WoW Necromancer class.

Those expansion classes were also of singular archetype: DKs are Necromancers. Monks are Martial artists who use brews. Demon Hunters are Elven Warriors who can transform into demons.

As an expansion class, the Tinker would really be no different than its predecessors, and that would be a singular archetype; A Goblin/Gnome inventor who pilots their custom steam armor/warframe/mech into battle.

Except they don't. Just drinking something in combat doesn't give any sort of indication that these are master brewers that travel the world brewing beer and learning new brewing secrets.

Even when they're brewing during combat?

It doesn't need to be lore based though. I can log on to any server, roll a Tauren and learn engineering. I can level that up and make guns, mechs, gizmos, explosives, etc... It is a player option. If a Tinker is somebody that makes guns, mechs, gizmos and explosives, it's bloody weird that I can make these things as a profession, but not as a class.

Well if its not lore based then it isn't part of the story. So if your tauren learning engineering isn't something that's part of the lore of WoW, it's just something your specific character does. In turn that means that tauren are not learning engineering from Gnomes and Goblins.

You're using hyperbole here to describe what engineering does though. It's not like all they make is trinkets and baubles. Engineers can make things that defy the laws of real world science.

Yeah, because WoW is a world where magic is real. In magical worlds science is heavily influenced and effected by magic because it effects the natural laws. So yeah, a Goblin inventor can create a teleportation device because he lives in a world where he has access to magical forms of energy, and some of those forms of energy allow portals to exist.

Except a constant movement buff already exists in Feral. It's definitely doable. Blizzard chose not to go this route. They could easily do the very same with literally any new class they decide to make. They could make a Tinker with a permanent mech, one with a mech cooldown, or one without a mech at all. The point is that they aren't married to what was present in WC3 and handcuffed to what was present there.

Feral movement is only like 15% though. Mounted movement would be 60-100%. Also we should remember that Mages and Shaman were also riding Horses and Wolves in WC3. They didn't get to be mounted at all times. Probably because it wasn't an ability. The Tinker's mech IS an ability.

One of them is literally a tea though...

Regardless, the Brewmaster is the only spec that had any mention of brewing or booze in the write up. Largely because it's the only one to have that archetypal identity. Which is fine. Blizzard took a narrow concept, and made a class out of it that stretched it to include more archetypes. This is what base classes are.

Really? I just linked you to all three Monk specs that had brewing abilities within them.

Also tea is a type of brew.

But Illidan is. If we're going to look at Illidan from HotS as a precedent, we have to also appreciate the fact that changes do exist when it comes to deriving a class from a named NPC.

Sure, but there's no point for Demon Hunters to have a permanent Metamorphosis form. It kind of defeats the purpose of their concept.

Except it really would be. We see that in what was presented in the Death Knight, Monk and Demon Hunter.

Those are not broad classes.

But again, personal preference. A lot of people like the Horde motif of things looking brutal and dark and dislike the sterile, clean and high tech look of alliance tech. The Horde is already the more populous faction. Add a class that features one of the most popular races Horde side and only the least popular Alliance side and imbalance will increase.

I'm not sure that's true. I believe that part of Mechagnomes unpopularity is that no current class fits it. A Tinker class is tailor made for that race, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of Mechagnome tinkers rival Vulpera Tinkers.

Alternate take: You create a new tech based class to fill the niche, allow more races to become a member of the class which in turn drives popularity, and you don't make a mech a permanent form so the players never really have the in your face issue of seeing mechs everywhere. It's a win/win.

But it's not just the tech, it's the theme. A whole bunch of medieval races running around with laser guns and tech explosives gives you the exact same problem that mechs do.

I can't believe that the majority of players don't want a new class at all. People like shiny new things. People like new things to try, new things to do.

Regardless, when it comes to metrics of player growth and player retention, there's not a ton we can really do unless Blizzard releases the numbers. My guess would be that a new class doesn't do a ton to shift the needle when it comes to acquiring new players, otherwise we wouldn't have gone two expansions without one.

Well why wouldn't it? What would attract a new player to WoW at this point? The classes of course. Now what if that person scrolls through the class list and doesn't find a class that interests them? They're probably not going to stay with the game.

Sure, let's move away from an outlier example like Varian then. Average Human soldier vs average Tauren soldier. The human should stand absolutely no chance. There should be no appreciable difference between a human or a Gnome fighting the thing. The Tauren should be able to mulch either one in seconds.
.

Well no, let's stick with Varian because he's kind of the point; He's a human warrior among a few other human warriors who can stand toe to toe with a Tauren. I'm not aware of any Gnome or Goblin heroes who are warriors. Outside of a few mages, every prominent Goblin or Gnome I run across is either inside a machine, or using a machine.

This is even the case for new players who do that new 1-10 Exile's Reach zone. When you first encounter a Goblin or Gnome depending on faction, they're once again using technology. It's a wacky and fun little sequence that really highlights the whimsical nature of science fiction and tech in WoW. However, I began to wonder what if a new player really loves that experience and wants to play as these whacky inventors? Is there anything for them in the class lineup? The answer would be a resounding no.

That's the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

this hasnt been a discussion about classes
]this has been over 100 pages of you arguing that the only ones able to be a tinker class are the races of azeroth too small for the darkmoon fair coaster
you cant even stay consistent
you argue against others concepts stating that either the concept doesnt work or the class is unnecessary because its too close to other stuff we have in the game but if someone makes that same argument to you then you either change the point or completely ignore it

Yes because I'm comparing those concepts to other classes. Others are comparing the Tinker to a profession.

just look at the tinker discussion
you had your concept and said "no the other races cant do it only my midgets"
lore wasnt a reason and in fact you argued that lore is meaningless compared to game mechanics
then when someone points out the mechanics cant be the same you argue lore
then someone made the claw pack concept and that became your flagship for a couple pages still arguing other races couldnt do it
you made the argument that the clawpack since it was in WC3 was definitely needed
then you changed that
then you gave in on some of the other races
then you changed that
and here we are again with you fighting for midget exclusivity

What's your problem with midgets?

Anyway, I'm sure that over the course of many pages, all discussions take multiple twists and turns.

if you think that anything in this thread is beyond peoples opinions toward non existent classes then i have no idea what to tell you because thats all any class concept is its just a bunch of opinions even those based on WC3 its just the opinions of some nerds on a forum none of which carry any more weight than anyone else even a murloc race with a full support spec because heck its in hearthstone and since thats a blizzard game that means its canon right

Well that's incorrect. It is a fact that the last three expansion classes were based on WC3 heroes. It is also a fact that the last two heroes to have no abilities ever appear in the class lineup are the Goblin Alchemist and the Goblin Tinker.

so yeah everyone has a valid opinion on this topic and if you arent interested in hearing those opinions then create a tinker specific thread because i have seen about 4 other classes that seem interesting and they keep getting drowned out by your autistic screeching about tinkers. It isnt just your fault though as theres people who for some reason decide to keep up a legit conversation and discussion thinking it will lead to anything more than you playing high and mighty with your mini megazord concept.

There's no need to insult autistic people.

so we have what dragonsworn and the warden class and the necromancer class and the priestess of the moon class which can be part of the warden class or the night warrior class that have all popped up here along with a bard like class which could work if the buffs to damage and everything work similar to the legion paladin blessing

Yeah, about 80% of those concepts aren't viable. If that makes you upset, I don't know what to tell you.

tinker literally has nothing new to be discussed

Actually we were having a rather nice discussion a few pages back about class mechanics. I'm also rather enjoying my conversation with Jellmoo.

so please instead of spending so much time saying "no that cant happen...but dont you dare say mine cant happen exactly how i have it set in my concept" i mean heck man you even say a dragonsworn cant happen without a full dragon form...which has no lore to back it up but you claim its the only thing that makes sense

Nah, you just misunderstood; I said that it's rather difficult to argue for a class concept with no abilities to speak of, and no lore character to base on. The reason Dragonsworn has some legs is because of Alexstraza, Chromie, and Deathwing in HotS providing a surprisingly consistent ability set, and Wrathion being a rather strong candidate for a lore character. The lore to back it up are the multiple dragons who take on mortal disguises in order to interact with the factions.

I personally don't see any other way you do that class. Anything else would be woefully generic, and heavily overlap with existing classes, since dragon-aligned abilities already exist within the class lineup. The ability to be an actual dragon though? That's quite unique.

someone makes that claim to your tinker...well its a terrible terrible thing

Well you really can't use that argument against the Tinker since there's plenty lore to back it up.

[Unbelievable]

2. Well we don't have to pretend that they're way ahead of the engineering profession, they are way ahead of the engineering profession.

Well the goal is to gain new players with your new class, (currently there is no technology class in WoW) and not alienate existing players. Again you do that by introducing something that has been established in WoW for decades (Goblins and Gnomes use technology), and not rocking the boat. Again, it's a win/win; WoW gets a technology class to attract new and returning players, and existing players don't feel that WoW is turning into Warhammer. They can't feel that way if it's restricted to races that are tech based and always been associated with tech, but they could feel that way if Orcs, Dwarves, Draenei, Blood Elves, Nightborne, etc. all get mechs and can also be Tinkers.

Ironically, the class being attached to the least popular races in the game currently could actually be a benefit.

I'm sure the majority of existing players don't want a new class at all, but again, the existing player base isn't the target of a new class entry. The target for new classes are people not playing WoW right now, but have the potential to pick it up if a class comes along that appeals to them.

More pointless semantic arguments.....

The bottom line is this; if someone wants to play as a Goblin or a Gnome in a mech like they see nearly every prominent Gnomes and Goblins doing, they simply can't do it. That's a gameplay disparity that needs to be filled, especially considering that there is a hero that could fill that void quite easily.



Nope, just a possible clue to what direction they may take the character in the future.

Not in lore, they are not. You seem to assume it because Engineering ended up as a profession and your Tinker concept is supposed to be a class.

Except, Warhammer is the inspiration for many of the Warcraft races:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...races/page5#85

Warcraft was supposed to be a Warhammer game.

It has much more connections to that game, than the MCU.

What you don't seem to grasp is that some class/race choices are game-play driven, as well. Look at Void elves and Lightforged Draenei. Does it make sense for a Void elf to be a Holy Priest? it doesn't. Does it make sense for a Lightforged Draenei to be a Shadow Priest? it doesn't. But, for the Void elf to be a Shadow Priest it must have access to other priest specs, and for a Lightforged Draenei to be a Holy priest, it must have access to other priest specs. So, the point of a Mag'har Orc being a Tinker is not so much the mech part of it but, the explosives-war part of it. The mech is just a gameplay-addition.

Everything is pointless semantics to you when it goes against your argument

I never said there is no demand for Tinkers. Since you skip this line every time, i'm gonna repeat it again: "I'm all for Tinkers".
It's not the Tinkers i'm against but, your nonsensical logic against other classes.

Then, you don't get the point of a pop-culture reference.

Really? You think someone’s opinion on lore is valid in a discussion about future class concepts where the lore is altered constantly?

Yes. If lore didn't matter you'd have classes like "Pimp", "President" and "Saiyan".

its just the opinions of some nerds on a forum

so yeah everyone has a valid opinion on this topic and if you arent interested in hearing those opinions then create a tinker specific thread because i have seen about 4 other classes that seem interesting and they keep getting drowned out by your autistic screeching about tinkers.

Preach.

2. The Gameplay is the evidence. Tinker abilities in WoW are far more powerful than Engineering items.

Well you need to divide the classes between classic classes and expansion classes. Classic classes tended to mix hero concepts together and be more traditional type of classes (Warriors, Rogues, Mages, Priests, etc.). This is why so many people erroneously clamor for classes like Blademasters or Wardens, not seemingly realizing that Blademasters were just Warriors with some Rogue abilities, and Wardens were essentially Rogues by design.

Expansion classes were developed a bit differently. Expansion classes tended to be based on a singular WC3 hero and strongly incorporated its theme throughout the class. Death Knights strongly incorporated the Necromancer theme from the hero unit. The Monk absorbed the themes and abilities of the Brewmaster hero. The Demon Hunter is self explanatory. These classes tended to be highly Blizzard-styled, and not really based on classic classes, but on Blizzard's particular take on a type of class. This is why people clamor for a Necromancer class, seemingly ignoring that the DK is WoW Necromancer class.

Those expansion classes were also of singular archetype: DKs are Necromancers. Monks are Martial artists who use brews. Demon Hunters are Elven Warriors who can transform into demons.

But it's not just the tech, it's the theme. A whole bunch of medieval races running around with laser guns and tech explosives gives you the exact same problem that mechs do.

Well no, let's stick with Varian because he's kind of the point; He's a human warrior among a few other human warriors who can stand toe to toe with a Tauren. I'm not aware of any Gnome or Goblin heroes who are warriors. Outside of a few mages, every prominent Goblin or Gnome I run across is either inside a machine, or using a machine.

Anyway, I'm sure that over the course of many pages, all discussions take multiple twists and turns.

Well that's incorrect. It is a fact that the last three expansion classes were based on WC3 heroes. It is also a fact that the last two heroes to have no abilities ever appear in the class lineup are the Goblin Alchemist and the Goblin Tinker.

Yeah, about 80% of those concepts aren't viable. If that makes you upset, I don't know what to tell you.

Actually we were having a rather nice discussion a few pages back about class mechanics. I'm also rather enjoying my conversation with Jellmoo.

Are they?:

Goblin Mortar
Item Level 22
Binds when equipped
Trinket
Use: Inflicts 20 Fire damage and stuns the targets in a 5 yard radius for 3 sec. (10 Min Cooldown)
6 Charges
Requires Engineering (205)

Xplodium Charge
35 yd range
1 sec cast 6 sec cooldown
Throw a bomb at the target area which will explode after 3 sec dealing 11 Fire Damage and stun targets for 2 sec.

"The Demon Hunter is self explanatory". nice way of dodging.

"Demon Hunters are Elven Warriors who can transform into demons." - weird, because according to your logic they are:

"This is why so many people erroneously clamor for classes like Demon Hunters or Tinkers, not seemingly realizing that Demon Hunters were just Warlocks with some Rogue abilities, and Tinkers were essentially Engineers by design."

"But it's not just the tech, it's the theme. A whole bunch of primitive fox people running around with laser guns and tech explosives gives you the exact same problem that mechs do."

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Bruiser#Known

Mekkatorque have been seen using a Shield and a Mace/Sword before he used a mech:
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Gelbin_Mekkatorque#Gallery

No, just your discussion. Because you change your mind every other page.

Weird you mention it. Because two out of the three classes that were added had their abilities in the class line-up. Death Coil, Immolate and Metamorphosis have been in the Warlock class, Evasion in the Rogue and Mana Burn in the Priest. Clearly, they are not adding classes based on what abilities are in, or not in, other classes. That's just your personal belief and wishes.

"Yeah, about 80% of those concepts aren't viable to me" - fixed it.

A discussion with you is never nice. Just pointing that out.

[Ielenia]

1. No, I'm just using the lore from WC3 to point out that the Tinker is an inventor.

Engineers are inventors too:

"Engineers take advantage of their inventiveness to create an immense (and occasionally random) variety of helpful items. By tinkering ceaselessly, and tolerating malfunctions and misfires, an engineer can make utterly unique objects: sight-enhancing goggles, potent guns, robot pets, mechanical mounts, and even more unusual trinkets. Successful engineers use their inventions to solve problems and make life easier, faster, and better for themselves and their companions.

It's not uncommon for Engineers to also specialize in Mining - the metals and ores they procure serve as building materials for their inventions."

[Teriz]

Not in lore, they are not.

If you’re talking about the profession, yes it’s way more powerful than the profession.

You seem to assume it because Engineering ended up as a profession and your Tinker concept is supposed to be a class.

Except it didn’t end up in the profession. We have Tinker abilities in WoW that aren’t in the profession. If the Tinker was placed into the engineering profession, that wouldn’t be the case.

Except, Warhammer is the inspiration for many of the Warcraft races:

Warcraft was supposed to be a Warhammer game.

That doesn’t mean that WoW players want WoW to become Warhammer.

What you don't seem to grasp is that some class/race choices are game-play driven, as well. Look at Void elves and Lightforged Draenei. Does it make sense for a Void elf to be a Holy Priest? it doesn't. Does it make sense for a Lightforged Draenei to be a Shadow Priest? it doesn't. But, for the Void elf to be a Shadow Priest it must have access to other priest specs, and for a Lightforged Draenei to be a Holy priest, it must have access to other priest specs. So, the point of a Mag'har Orc being a Tinker is not so much the mech part of it but, the explosives-war part of it. The mech is just a gameplay-addition.

Yeah, that was a bad comparison. Again, the Mag’har is supposed to be the more “savage” and pure version of orcs. The idea that you’d give that kind of race a mech class is laughable. Hunters, Warriors, Shaman, sure. Tinkers? Nah.

Also Vulpera are rather good explosive makers.

Everything is pointless semantics to you when it goes against your argument

Nah, just using the blanket term engineer which could apply to a broad swath of characters in WoW and then pretend that that broad swath is the exact same thing with zero nuance. That’s semantics.

Yes. If lore didn't matter you'd have classes like "Pimp", "President" and "Saiyan".

No you wouldn’t. You can create a concept without lore. Lore is just the background story.

Are they?:

Goblin Mortar
Item Level 22
Binds when equipped
Trinket
Use: Inflicts 20 Fire damage and stuns the targets in a 5 yard radius for 3 sec. (10 Min Cooldown)
6 Charges
Requires Engineering (205)

Xplodium Charge
35 yd range
1 sec cast 6 sec cooldown
Throw a bomb at the target area which will explode after 3 sec dealing 11 Fire Damage and stun targets for 2 sec.

Yes. Xplodium Charge’s damage scales with character level, like all abilities do.

[Ielenia]

If you’re talking about the profession, yes it’s way more powerful than the profession.

A claim you always repeat, and yet never demonstrated, without resorting to game mechanics.

[Teriz]

A claim you always repeat, and yet never demonstrated, without resorting to game mechanics.

Game mechanics would be an example of a demonstration.

[Unbelievable]

If you’re talking about the profession, yes it’s way more powerful than the profession.



Except it didn’t end up in the profession. We have Tinker abilities in WoW that aren’t in the profession. If the Tinker was placed into the engineering profession, that wouldn’t be the case.



That doesn’t mean that WoW players want WoW to become Warhammer.



Yeah, that was a bad comparison. Again, the Mag’har is supposed to be the more “savage” and pure version of orcs. The idea that you’d give that kind of race a mech class is laughable. Hunters, Warriors, Shaman, sure. Tinkers? Nah.

Also Vulpera are rather good explosive makers.



Nah, just using the blanket term engineer which could apply to a broad swath of characters in WoW and then pretend that that broad swath is the exact same thing with zero nuance. That’s semantics.



No you wouldn’t. You can create a concept without lore. Lore is just the background story.



Yes. Xplodium Charge’s damage scales with character level, like all abilities do.

Then, you need to provide the lore that shows us that your declaration is true.

I said you assumed so because a profession and a class in game are categorized differently.

More than Marvel, that's for sure. What would players like more? inspiration from a game that resembles their own, or a universe that is sci-fi and barely has any connections to WoW? I'm placing my bets on the first one.

Giving the Mag'har race a technology class that suits their war technology theme makes perfect sense. It is present in other games, as well.

Oh, you mean Vulpera Fireflask? That's an alchemical concoction, like a molotov cocktail, not an explosive.

Meanwhile, Mag'har orcs have been using actual explosives, like the Iron Star.

A broad swath that includes your foremost Tinker, Gazlowe.

Concepts are not actual classes. Anyone can make them. Blizzard wouldn't add a class without lore. Because, like i said, you would end up with some ridiculous classes that have nothing to do with WoW.

Well, as it stands now, after the Shadowlands level squish, it does 11 damage and stuns 1 target for 2 sec.

Meanwhile, Goblin Mortar, after the Shadowlands squish, does 20 damage and stuns multiple targets for 3 sec.

[Teriz]

Then, you need to provide the lore that shows us that your declaration is true.

You mean other than the gameplay that reflects the lore?

I said you assumed so because a profession and a class in game are categorized differently.

Again, if the Tinker were made into the profession in WoW we would see the Tinker's abilities in the profession. For example, we would see Claw Packs, we would see Pocket Factory, we would see Cluster Rocket, we would see Robo Goblin, etc.

The fact that we don't see that, and that we see Tinker abilities OUTSIDE of the profession proves that what you're saying never happened.

Giving the Mag'har race a technology class that suits their war technology theme makes perfect sense. It is present in other games, as well.

Except they have no war technology outside of clubs and spears.

Oh, you mean Vulpera Fireflask? That's an alchemical concoction, like a molotov cocktail, not an explosive.

You do know that Molotov Cocktails are also known as Petrol/Gasoline/Bottle bombs right?

Meanwhile, Mag'har orcs have been using actual explosives, like the Iron Star.

Invented by and built by Goblins.

A broad swath that includes your foremost Tinker, Gazlowe.

Yeah, which is my point; Gazlowe is an engineer, but that doesn't mean he's the same as every other engineer.

Concepts are not actual classes. Anyone can make them. Blizzard wouldn't add a class without lore. Because, like i said, you would end up with some ridiculous classes that have nothing to do with WoW.

I never said Blizzard would. I'm saying you CAN make a class without lore behind it. All you need is a theme and abilities.

Well, as it stands now, after the Shadowlands level squish, it does 11 damage and stuns 1 target for 2 sec.

Meanwhile, Goblin Mortar, after the Shadowlands squish, does 20 damage and stuns multiple targets for 3 sec.

And like I said, it scales with level, like all abilities do. Also it stuns ALL targets in the area.

It also doesn't have a 10 minute cool down between uses. How many Xplodium Charges can you use in a 10 minute period versus the single time you use the Mortar?

[jellmoo]

1. No, I'm just using the lore from WC3 to point out that the Tinker is an inventor.
2. The Gameplay is the evidence. Tinker abilities in WoW are far more powerful than Engineering items.

1. In that instance you weren't though. You were describing the difference between Gnomish and Goblin creations, which wasn't covered by the quote posted. I mean, I get what you're saying, but ultimately you're interpreting a small blurb about an NPC unit in another game to mean something it doesn't directly say, and then apply it as gospel to a potential Tinker class.
2. Except that's just a failure of scaling. I mean, if you were to have a level 60 character using top level Engineering items fight a level 30 Tinker NPC, the high level Engineering items would be more powerful than the Tinker abilities. It's not a comparison that really proves anything.

Well you need to divide the classes between classic classes and expansion classes. Classic classes tended to mix hero concepts together and be more traditional type of classes (Warriors, Rogues, Mages, Priests, etc.). This is why so many people erroneously clamor for classes like Blademasters or Wardens, not seemingly realizing that Blademasters were just Warriors with some Rogue abilities, and Wardens were essentially Rogues by design.

Expansion classes were developed a bit differently. Expansion classes tended to be based on a singular WC3 hero and strongly incorporated its theme throughout the class. Death Knights strongly incorporated the Necromancer theme from the hero unit. The Monk absorbed the themes and abilities of the Brewmaster hero. The Demon Hunter is self explanatory. These classes tended to be highly Blizzard-styled, and not really based on classic classes, but on Blizzard's particular take on a type of class. This is why people clamor for a Necromancer class, seemingly ignoring that the DK is WoW Necromancer class.

I disagree. I don't think you divide it into Expansion classes and Classic classes. There is no appreciable mechanical difference to be found there. What you need to do is divide it between Base classes and Hero classes, and there most definitely is a mechanical difference there. Base classes are all general enough to cover multiple archetypes and allow people wanting to play a large variety of character types to pick the class and fulfill that fantasy. Hero classes don't so much have that, as they are incredibly specific.

Base classes are all a character deciding to pursue something, study it, and embrace that as their focus. Hero classes are forced into something, literally becoming it. Hero classes are also time locked, because they are created by another powerful figure.

The Monk fits in with the other base classes. Death Knights and Demon Hunters don't, and have their own unique narratives. Now, my assumption would be that a potential Tinker class would be a base class and not a hero class. This means that it would have a fairly wide array of potential archetypes within it, allowing for multiple character types and class fantasy fulfilments.

Those expansion classes were also of singular archetype: DKs are Necromancers. Monks are Martial artists who use brews. Demon Hunters are Elven Warriors who can transform into demons.

I gotta disagree here. Death Knights aren't Necromancers. Well, they are, kind of (I don't want to get sidetracked here on a DK=Necromancer argument. Suffice it to say I don't think that Necromancers will be joining the game anytime soon), but they are primarily armored servants of the Lich King (whether Arthas or Bolvar). They are created for the purpose of serving whatever foul ends their master had in mind. It's a very specific thing. Demon Hunters are similar. They are created by Illidan for a specific purpose, fighting the Legion.

Monks are nowhere near as specific. Martial Artist is very general. It encompasses a bunch of archetypes from inside and outside of Warcraft. It has no singular purpose like Death Knights or Demon Hunters have. It is a catch all class for a variety of concepts that lets players pick one and fulfill the character fantasy they want using the class. In this way, it is exactly like the other base classes.
As an expansion class, the Tinker would really be no different than its predecessors, and that would be a singular archetype; A Goblin/Gnome inventor who pilots their custom steam armor/warframe/mech into battle.

Even when they're brewing during combat?

Where are you getting the info that they are brewing in combat Tiger's eye brew just mentioned consuming stacks of brew, not brewing it literally in combat. And regardless, you can't have one spec mention "brews brews brews brews" all over the place, and two specs that don't mention it at all, and say that all three specs are master brewers. It's like saying all three mages are masters of Frost magic because they all can cast Frost Nova.

Well if its not lore based then it isn't part of the story. So if your tauren learning engineering isn't something that's part of the lore of WoW, it's just something your specific character does. In turn that means that tauren are not learning engineering from Gnomes and Goblins.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that any Tauren character can learn Engineering. It's a possibility for literally every character. Engineering can build mechs, guns, bombs, gizmos, etc... If a class is added who does essentially the same thing, it's more than a little weird.

Now, jump away from Tauren for a second and look at other races using that same info. You can make a Dwarf engineer that can create all of the above. But can't be a Tinker? Even though that sort of thing is steeped into the lore of the race? Now, what if the Tinker has that sweet, sweet Alchemy spec? Does it make sense that a Forsaken character couldn't be a member of the class? They have access to the entirety of the Priest class just because of a single spec.

My point is that you have to do some pretty heavy mental gymnastics to really justify this.

Yeah, because WoW is a world where magic is real. In magical worlds science is heavily influenced and effected by magic because it effects the natural laws. So yeah, a Goblin inventor can create a teleportation device because he lives in a world where he has access to magical forms of energy, and some of those forms of energy allow portals to exist.

I mean, that's a pretty great explanation, but it really is head canon at the end of the day. Regardless, this still belies the point that Engineers are creating fantastical and incredible things. The ultimate issue is that Blizzard borked the way the profession works when it comes to scaling. These aren't silly things to sell on eBay. They are incredible inventions that do incredible things.

Now, for my money, a potential Tinker class is really just correcting something to allow the viability of character concept. Because Engineering is a massive letdown (mechanically), we need a class that uses actual class abilities in order fulfill the class fantasy.

Feral movement is only like 15% though. Mounted movement would be 60-100%. Also we should remember that Mages and Shaman were also riding Horses and Wolves in WC3. They didn't get to be mounted at all times. Probably because it wasn't an ability. The Tinker's mech IS an ability.

30%, but that's neither here nor there. There's absolutely nothing that says that a mounted Death Knight would need to move at 6-5 to 100%. They could just as easily add a note saying that they have to slow down some to maintain mount control. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that Blizzard felt comfortable enough to make a change, despite the fact that it was certainly possible that players of WC3 would have wanted a mounted DK.

The point is that Blizzard is clearly willing to make changes from what was present in a 20 year old game to better match what they want present in WoW.

Really? I just linked you to all three Monk specs that had brewing abilities within them.

Also tea is a type of brew.

Okay, that is the stretchiest stretch in the history of stretching. The Brewmaster from WC3 is very clearly all about brewing beer. It's clearly a variation of the Drunken Master style of martial arts trope. Tea brewing is very clearly not a part of that. The Monk has one spec that mentions brewing and two that really don't.

Sure, but there's no point for Demon Hunters to have a permanent Metamorphosis form. It kind of defeats the purpose of their concept.

It doesn't though. I mean, clearly a big part of the fantasy is playing a character like Illidan. A big part of the fantasy is playing as a badass demon that wrecks enemies.

Those are not broad classes.

The Monk is a broad class though.

I'm not sure that's true. I believe that part of Mechagnomes unpopularity is that no current class fits it. A Tinker class is tailor made for that race, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of Mechagnome tinkers rival Vulpera Tinkers.

Mechagnomes have the massive problem of aesthetics. They look like they are wearing diapers. It's unfortunate. And ultimately, Vulpera are just plain more popular with the benefits of both better aesthetics and a really, really good racial. I really, really don't see the number of Mechagnomes rivaling the number of Vulpera if a Tinker class were added. I would honestly be surprised if there wound up being half as many Mechangnomes as Gnomes, and half as many Gnomes as Vulpera.

But it's not just the tech, it's the theme. A whole bunch of medieval races running around with laser guns and tech explosives gives you the exact same problem that mechs do.

Visibility is a pretty big thing though. A laser gun is only so big even on a larger sized race. Explosions and tech effects are not terribly different from spell effects in game. It's really different if you have a Dwarf firing a gun, throwing a bomb, dropping a turret, rocket jumping around and launching missiles than having ED-209 show up as a giant mech in the middle of the screen looking like he belongs more in Robotech than Warcraft.

Well why wouldn't it? What would attract a new player to WoW at this point? The classes of course. Now what if that person scrolls through the class list and doesn't find a class that interests them? They're probably not going to stay with the game.

Except the proof is in the pudding. We are two expansions in without a new class. If we assume that new classes bring in new players, and we assume that Blizzard wants new players, you would think that they would be spending a lot more time developing new classes than the no amount of time they seem to have settled on.

The thing is I agree with you on a personal level. I love new classes. It's the most exciting thing about an expansion to me. But if I step back, unless Blizzard is just, you know, really bad at wanting to expanding, they must have information at hand that indicates that new classes don't move the needle all that much. That it's not worth the investment.

Well no, let's stick with Varian because he's kind of the point; He's a human warrior among a few other human warriors who can stand toe to toe with a Tauren. I'm not aware of any Gnome or Goblin heroes who are warriors. Outside of a few mages, every prominent Goblin or Gnome I run across is either inside a machine, or using a machine.

Again, one super exceptional human with a magic sword(s), intense amounts of training and a magic wolf spirit living in him isn't really the best example.

The really stupid thing is that ultimately I agree with your conclusion, just not how you get there. a Tinker class for both Gnomes and Goblins makes a ton of sense in a world where they have to fight things such as Tauren, Worgen and giant demons. The only caveat I have is that I extend it to other races as well. I see Dwarves doing exactly the same thing. I see Forsaken doing exactly the same thing.

This is even the case for new players who do that new 1-10 Exile's Reach zone. When you first encounter a Goblin or Gnome depending on faction, they're once again using technology. It's a wacky and fun little sequence that really highlights the whimsical nature of science fiction and tech in WoW. However, I began to wonder what if a new player really loves that experience and wants to play as these whacky inventors? Is there anything for them in the class lineup? The answer would be a resounding no.

I can't disagree with that.

That's the problem.

Where we differ is that I think the problem extends past both Gnomes and Goblins. I still remember the very first time I saw a Dwarven siege tank. I remember thinking how frickin cool that was. Where you get to see how inventive and geared for war Dwarves are. Gnomes had all the fun and zanny inventions, Dwarves were focused on tech in battle. I want that in game. Same with Forsaken and alchemy and plagues. I want to see these so called master of plagues, masters of creating concoctions actually have that represented in game. I want to be able to play as a member of this Royal Apothecary Society.

You seem to want a class that recreates the Gnome and TGoblin mech experience. I'm much more interested in a broader class that takes the idea of tech and alchemical fun and brings it to life in a broader way. One that allows the class to fulfill a much wider array of tech archetypes. One that is way less narrow, and way more accommodating to the variety of cobncepts that players want to fulfill.

[Teriz]

1. In that instance you weren't though. You were describing the difference between Gnomish and Goblin creations, which wasn't covered by the quote posted. I mean, I get what you're saying, but ultimately you're interpreting a small blurb about an NPC unit in another game to mean something it doesn't directly say, and then apply it as gospel to a potential Tinker class.
2. Except that's just a failure of scaling. I mean, if you were to have a level 60 character using top level Engineering items fight a level 30 Tinker NPC, the high level Engineering items would be more powerful than the Tinker abilities. It's not a comparison that really proves anything.

1. And I was pointing that out because you mentioned the Goblin propensity to create unstable devices. In WoW, Gnome devices are considered more stable and refined. That's all I was saying. The main point though is that the Tinker is an inventor, and the ability set of that concept tends to revolve around the use of a large machine or mech. Further, WoW is a sequel to WC3, so we shouldn't pretend like the games have nothing to do with each other. They do, and WC3 continues to influence WoW even in the current expansion.

2.Incorrect. It's intentional. The profession is weaker by DESIGN, not by accident. Also I wouldn't use that example, I would use a level 60 Druid with engineering against a level 60 mob. Why? Because if the profession is intended to be a representation of technology on equal bearing with classes, then the Druid should have no problem downing an equal level mob using nothing by profession items. The fact that it could not shows where engineering is on the power scale.

This becomes even more pronounced when your bring actual Tinker abilities into the equation. Taking the previous comparison that @Unbelievable brought upl

Goblin Mortar
Item Level 22
Binds when equipped
Trinket
Use: Inflicts 20 Fire damage and stuns the targets in a 5 yard radius for 3 sec. (10 Min Cooldown)
6 Charges
Requires Engineering (205)

Xplodium Charge
35 yd range
1 sec cast 6 sec cooldown
Throw a bomb at the target area which will explode after 3 sec dealing 11 Fire Damage and stun targets for 2 sec.

That 10 minute CD on Goblin Mortar is also not a failure of scaling, that is purposeful design intended to inform the player that this is not to be used like a rotational ability. Xplodium charge on the other hand only has a 6 second CD and doesn't eat up an armor slot.

I disagree. I don't think you divide it into Expansion classes and Classic classes. There is no appreciable mechanical difference to be found there. What you need to do is divide it between Base classes and Hero classes, and there most definitely is a mechanical difference there. Base classes are all general enough to cover multiple archetypes and allow people wanting to play a large variety of character types to pick the class and fulfill that fantasy. Hero classes don't so much have that, as they are incredibly specific.

Base classes are all a character deciding to pursue something, study it, and embrace that as their focus. Hero classes are forced into something, literally becoming it. Hero classes are also time locked, because they are created by another powerful figure.

The Monk fits in with the other base classes. Death Knights and Demon Hunters don't, and have their own unique narratives. Now, my assumption would be that a potential Tinker class would be a base class and not a hero class. This means that it would have a fairly wide array of potential archetypes within it, allowing for multiple character types and class fantasy fulfilments.

Outside of starting at level 1, what similarities design wise does a Monk have with the base classes? I mean you say that the hero classes are very specific. How can you say that a class based entirely on Pandaren martial arts and the Brewmaster is not a highly specific class?

Unlike say the Shaman class which incorporates Far Seers, Witch Doctors, Shadow Hunters, and Spirit Walkers. Or Druids which incorporates Druids of the Claw, Druids of the Talon and Keepers of the Grove? Compared to those, the Monk class is EXTREMELY specific.

I gotta disagree here. Death Knights aren't Necromancers. Well, they are, kind of (I don't want to get sidetracked here on a DK=Necromancer argument. Suffice it to say I don't think that Necromancers will be joining the game anytime soon), but they are primarily armored servants of the Lich King (whether Arthas or Bolvar). They are created for the purpose of serving whatever foul ends their master had in mind. It's a very specific thing. Demon Hunters are similar. They are created by Illidan for a specific purpose, fighting the Legion.

That's really irrelevant to their purpose in the class lineup though. The DK serves the purpose of the Necromancer class because it possesses all of the abilities of a Necromancer. It truly is that simple.

Monks are nowhere near as specific. Martial Artist is very general. It encompasses a bunch of archetypes from inside and outside of Warcraft. It has no singular purpose like Death Knights or Demon Hunters have. It is a catch all class for a variety of concepts that lets players pick one and fulfill the character fantasy they want using the class. In this way, it is exactly like the other base classes.
As an expansion class, the Tinker would really be no different than its predecessors, and that would be a singular archetype; A Goblin/Gnome inventor who pilots their custom steam armor/warframe/mech into battle.

While Martial Arts is very broad, the Monk class is not. Again, the entire class is based around the Pandaren version of Martial arts, and the mechanics of the class revolve around the use of brews for enhancement and resource restoration. Keep in mind that before MoP there was a rather large variety of Monks in WoW. We had Blood Elf Monks, Undead Monks, Human Monks, even Gnome Monks who all had their own unique spells. That was all washed away in favor for the Pandaren theme and the Brewmaster hero's abilities.

Where are you getting the info that they are brewing in combat Tiger's eye brew just mentioned consuming stacks of brew, not brewing it literally in combat. And regardless, you can't have one spec mention "brews brews brews brews" all over the place, and two specs that don't mention it at all, and say that all three specs are master brewers. It's like saying all three mages are masters of Frost magic because they all can cast Frost Nova.

Right here:

Brewing: Tigereye Brew
Level 60 Windwalker monk ability
Passive
For each 4 Chi you consume through use of abilities and attacks, you gain a charge of Tigereye Brew. Use Tigereye Brew to consume the charges, granting you 6% increased damage and healing for 15 sec.

Tigereye Brew can stack up to 20 times, but you can only consume up to 10 stacks at a time for 60% increased damage.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Brewing:_Tigereye_Brew

In other words, while you were using Chi, you were generating stacks of brew to use. Hence, you were brewing brews while fighting, and that is in the Windwalker (DPS) spec of the class, not the Brewmaster spec.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that any Tauren character can learn Engineering. It's a possibility for literally every character. Engineering can build mechs, guns, bombs, gizmos, etc... If a class is added who does essentially the same thing, it's more than a little weird.

Again, your character doing it because you decided to have your tauren learn engineering does not mean that ever Tauren can do it, or does it. Again, it's not lore.

Now, jump away from Tauren for a second and look at other races using that same info. You can make a Dwarf engineer that can create all of the above. But can't be a Tinker? Even though that sort of thing is steeped into the lore of the race? Now, what if the Tinker has that sweet, sweet Alchemy spec? Does it make sense that a Forsaken character couldn't be a member of the class? They have access to the entirety of the Priest class just because of a single spec.

My point is that you have to do some pretty heavy mental gymnastics to really justify this.

Not really. Your character doing engineering is not a lore-based event, it's optional gameplay. So you can't say that race X did this because I did it with my character.

Secondly, the engineering profession really has nothing to do with the Tinker class beyond thematics. It's like saying the enchanting profession allows you to be a mage. Well, enchanting is available to the tauren player, but not the mage class.

I mean, that's a pretty great explanation, but it really is head canon at the end of the day. Regardless, this still belies the point that Engineers are creating fantastical and incredible things. The ultimate issue is that Blizzard borked the way the profession works when it comes to scaling. These aren't silly things to sell on eBay. They are incredible inventions that do incredible things.

Now, for my money, a potential Tinker class is really just correcting something to allow the viability of character concept. Because Engineering is a massive letdown (mechanically), we need a class that uses actual class abilities in order fulfill the class fantasy.

Well you missed the point of the profession and its ultimate purpose. The professions were never designed to emulate a class. The professions were implemented as a time sink for players, and to allow players to craft items. They are an extension of WC3's item system where you were able to purchase items from the shops and equip those items to either enhance yourself, heal, have abilities similar to other heroes, or to summon minions. As a profession, engineering is never meant to be an equal to Druids, Mages, Warriors, Shaman, etc. It's meant to be an equal to tailoring, jewel crafting, leather working, blacksmithing, etc.

Again, the engineering profession has zero to do with the Tinker hero concept or any class that potentially results from it. Thus the class' creation also has nothing to do with "correcting" any downsides within the engineering profession. If the engineering profession is producing toy bombs with huge cooldowns that can't kill anything and gizmos meant for mere amusement, then the profession is working as intended.

Which is why there should be a technology class.

30%, but that's neither here nor there. There's absolutely nothing that says that a mounted Death Knight would need to move at 6-5 to 100%. They could just as easily add a note saying that they have to slow down some to maintain mount control. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that Blizzard felt comfortable enough to make a change, despite the fact that it was certainly possible that players of WC3 would have wanted a mounted DK.

The point is that Blizzard is clearly willing to make changes from what was present in a 20 year old game to better match what they want present in WoW.

It should be noted again that the DK being mounted in WC3 wasn't an ability, it was merely the model.

Okay, that is the stretchiest stretch in the history of stretching. The Brewmaster from WC3 is very clearly all about brewing beer. It's clearly a variation of the Drunken Master style of martial arts trope. Tea brewing is very clearly not a part of that. The Monk has one spec that mentions brewing and two that really don't.

So your argument is that a "Brewmaster" wouldn't be capable of brewing a cup of tea?

It doesn't though. I mean, clearly a big part of the fantasy is playing a character like Illidan. A big part of the fantasy is playing as a badass demon that wrecks enemies.

Yeah, but the entire point of the concept is the interplay between those states. It's almost like a Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy. You have a broken elf who is blind and covered in tattoos and has dedicated his existence to destroying demons, yet he also has the ability to become exactly what he hates.

Being a demon permanently really weakens that concept, because then you're just a demon. And frankly, Blizzard made a huge mistake not giving the Demon Hunter class the same mechanic as the Warlock class in WoD where Metamorphosis wasn't a CD but a resource driven state change. That would simply make things WAY more dynamic than making meta a simply cool down. Having played the Havoc spec, they should really consider reimplementing those mechanics into the DH class in the future.

The Monk is a broad class though.

See above.

Mechagnomes have the massive problem of aesthetics. They look like they are wearing diapers. It's unfortunate. And ultimately, Vulpera are just plain more popular with the benefits of both better aesthetics and a really, really good racial. I really, really don't see the number of Mechagnomes rivaling the number of Vulpera if a Tinker class were added. I would honestly be surprised if there wound up being half as many Mechangnomes as Gnomes, and half as many Gnomes as Vulpera.

Well yeah if you strip them naked. Most people don’t do that. The massive problem with aesthetics is that there is no class that matches their appearance. They are cyborgs in a game with warlocks and paladins, so obviously there is a thematic clash.

Visibility is a pretty big thing though. A laser gun is only so big even on a larger sized race. Explosions and tech effects are not terribly different from spell effects in game. It's really different if you have a Dwarf firing a gun, throwing a bomb, dropping a turret, rocket jumping around and launching missiles than having ED-209 show up as a giant mech in the middle of the screen looking like he belongs more in Robotech than Warcraft.

That really sounds generic. There’s nothing there to tell me that this is a technology class beyond the spell effects (which amounts to a more advanced Hunter honestly). A tech class needs to stand out a bit more than that or it’s not going to be adopted.

Except the proof is in the pudding. We are two expansions in without a new class. If we assume that new classes bring in new players, and we assume that Blizzard wants new players, you would think that they would be spending a lot more time developing new classes than the no amount of time they seem to have settled on.

The thing is I agree with you on a personal level. I love new classes. It's the most exciting thing about an expansion to me. But if I step back, unless Blizzard is just, you know, really bad at wanting to expanding, they must have information at hand that indicates that new classes don't move the needle all that much. That it's not worth the investment.

The reason we’re two expansions in with no new classes more than likely stems from the simple reality that there aren’t many WoW. class concepts left. I know years ago they said they had like 50 or so class ideas, but I don’t think that was true. I also believe that they’re not going to release a new class that is two close mechanically and thematically to an existing class, hence why Dark Rangers and Necromancers didn’t pop up in this expansion. There are existing classes that appeal to players who want those type of classes, or you can simply tweak existing specs to bring those players into the game.

The next class is more likely going to be very different than what we currently have in the class lineup. A technology class works very well in that scenario.

Again, one super exceptional human with a magic sword(s), intense amounts of training and a magic wolf spirit living in him isn't really the best example.

The really stupid thing is that ultimately I agree with your conclusion, just not how you get there. a Tinker class for both Gnomes and Goblins makes a ton of sense in a world where they have to fight things such as Tauren, Worgen and giant demons. The only caveat I have is that I extend it to other races as well. I see Dwarves doing exactly the same thing. I see Forsaken doing exactly the same thing.

Dwarves are tough and strong. Why do they need mechs? Forsaken are pretty much humans, and they’re highly versed in plagues and poisons. Why do they need mechs? That’s the question that needs to be asked.

Where we differ is that I think the problem extends past both Gnomes and Goblins. I still remember the very first time I saw a Dwarven siege tank. I remember thinking how frickin cool that was. Where you get to see how inventive and geared for war Dwarves are. Gnomes had all the fun and zanny inventions, Dwarves were focused on tech in battle. I want that in game. Same with Forsaken and alchemy and plagues. I want to see these so called master of plagues, masters of creating concoctions actually have that represented in game. I want to be able to play as a member of this Royal Apothecary Society.

You seem to want a class that recreates the Gnome and TGoblin mech experience. I'm much more interested in a broader class that takes the idea of tech and alchemical fun and brings it to life in a broader way. One that allows the class to fulfill a much wider array of tech archetypes. One that is way less narrow, and way more accommodating to the variety of cobncepts that players want to fulfill.

Well I certainly understand that. People enjoy different things. Who knows? Maybe I’m entirely wrong about this and Blizzard gives Tinkers to every race! I don’t see that happening, but it’s always a possibility.

That said, with the Forsaken, I would strongly recommend Rogues or Hunters to get a taste of their poison thematic.

[Unbelievable]

You mean other than the gameplay that reflects the lore?



Again, if the Tinker were made into the profession in WoW we would see the Tinker's abilities in the profession. For example, we would see Claw Packs, we would see Pocket Factory, we would see Cluster Rocket, we would see Robo Goblin, etc.

The fact that we don't see that, and that we see Tinker abilities OUTSIDE of the profession proves that what you're saying never happened.



Except they have no war technology outside of clubs and spears.



You do know that Molotov Cocktails are also known as Petrol/Gasoline/Bottle bombs right?



Invented by and built by Goblins.



Yeah, which is my point; Gazlowe is an engineer, but that doesn't mean he's the same as every other engineer.



I never said Blizzard would. I'm saying you CAN make a class without lore behind it. All you need is a theme and abilities.



And like I said, it scales with level, like all abilities do. Also it stuns ALL targets in the area.

It also doesn't have a 10 minute cool down between uses. How many Xplodium Charges can you use in a 10 minute period versus the single time you use the Mortar?

Yes. I mean other than gameplay. It should have been obvious by now.

There is Cluster Rockets. Just different from your expectations.

I always knew you were a comedian.


https://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Iron_...e_vehicles.jpg

I knew you'd try to use it :
"(not to be confused with an actual fire bomb)"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing

The difference between them and Vulpera is that Vulpera never adopted Goblin technology as part of their culture. They, surely, didn't have an entire expansion dedicated to that, like the Iron Horde.
"Many Iron Horde soldiers, mostly from the Blackrock clan, were also trained how to use firearms and explosives."

So, that would be like me saying:
Yeah, which is my point; Sylvanas is a hunter, but that doesn't mean she's the same as every other hunter." - would you accept this argument?

A class that has nothing to do with WoW. Would you consider it valid if i just took Dragon Ball theme and abilities and made it into a class?

That's the damage description of a level 50 Gazlowe's Xplodium charge. If you have an actual, current, higher scaled numbers of an Xplodium charge, you may post them here.

This becomes even more pronounced when your bring actual Tinker abilities into the equation. Taking the previous comparison that @Unbelievable brought upl

That 10 minute CD on Goblin Mortar is also not a failure of scaling, that is purposeful design intended to inform the player that this is not to be used like a rotational ability. Xplodium charge on the other hand only has a 6 second CD and doesn't eat up an armor slot.

The reason we’re two expansions in with no new classes more than likely stems from the simple reality that there aren’t many WoW. class concepts left. I know years ago they said they had like 50 or so class ideas, but I don’t think that was true. I also believe that they’re not going to release a new class that is two close mechanically and thematically to an existing class, hence why Dark Rangers and Necromancers didn’t pop up in this expansion. There are existing classes that appeal to players who want those type of classes, or you can simply tweak existing specs to bring those players into the game.

Dwarves are tough and strong. Why do they need mechs? Forsaken are pretty much humans, and they’re highly versed in plagues and poisons. Why do they need mechs? That’s the question that needs to be asked.

Same with Forsaken and alchemy and plagues. I want to see these so called master of plagues, masters of creating concoctions actually have that represented in game. I want to be able to play as a member of this Royal Apothecary Society.

You forget to mention that Goblin Mortar has 6 charges. That would be a stun every 1.6 minutes. anything less than that would provide other classes with too much stuns available.

Actually, they already did. The necrotic theme of the Death Knight was already present in the affliction Warlock, heavy armored melee fighter was already fulfilled with the Warrior and Paladin, Summoning minions was already in the hunter and Warlock, Frost magic was already in the Mage. Demon Hunter's fel theme was, already, covered by the Warlock. Transforming into a demon was covered the Warlock, as well. Agile, fast-paced melee fighting was, already, covered by the Rogue.

So, according to your logic these two shouldn't have been added, whatsoever.

"Vulpera are pretty much forsaken, they’re highly versed in potions and poisons. why do they need a mech?" - you just played yourself with that dumb logic.

The Forsaken Apothecary RP you want is in my Alchemist concept, which can't come true if you make it a Tinker spec.

[Ielenia]

Game mechanics would be an example of a demonstration.

Game mechanics are useless when discussing lore. Because gameplay is not lore. So we're back to my original point: you have a claim you always repeat, and yet never demonstrated, without resorting to game mechanics.

Also, don't think I didn't notice you conveniently ignoring the lore that says that engineers are inventors too, and all my other arguments.

[Revamp Man]

1. No, I'm just using the lore from WC3 to point out that the Tinker is an inventor.
2. The Gameplay is the evidence. Tinker abilities in WoW are far more powerful than Engineering items.



Well you need to divide the classes between classic classes and expansion classes. Classic classes tended to mix hero concepts together and be more traditional type of classes (Warriors, Rogues, Mages, Priests, etc.). This is why so many people erroneously clamor for classes like Blademasters or Wardens, not seemingly realizing that Blademasters were just Warriors with some Rogue abilities, and Wardens were essentially Rogues by design.

Expansion classes were developed a bit differently. Expansion classes tended to be based on a singular WC3 hero and strongly incorporated its theme throughout the class. Death Knights strongly incorporated the Necromancer theme from the hero unit. The Monk absorbed the themes and abilities of the Brewmaster hero. The Demon Hunter is self explanatory. These classes tended to be highly Blizzard-styled, and not really based on classic classes, but on Blizzard's particular take on a type of class. This is why people clamor for a Necromancer class, seemingly ignoring that the DK is WoW Necromancer class.

Those expansion classes were also of singular archetype: DKs are Necromancers. Monks are Martial artists who use brews. Demon Hunters are Elven Warriors who can transform into demons.

As an expansion class, the Tinker would really be no different than its predecessors, and that would be a singular archetype; A Goblin/Gnome inventor who pilots their custom steam armor/warframe/mech into battle.



Even when they're brewing during combat?



Well if its not lore based then it isn't part of the story. So if your tauren learning engineering isn't something that's part of the lore of WoW, it's just something your specific character does. In turn that means that tauren are not learning engineering from Gnomes and Goblins.




Yeah, because WoW is a world where magic is real. In magical worlds science is heavily influenced and effected by magic because it effects the natural laws. So yeah, a Goblin inventor can create a teleportation device because he lives in a world where he has access to magical forms of energy, and some of those forms of energy allow portals to exist.



Feral movement is only like 15% though. Mounted movement would be 60-100%. Also we should remember that Mages and Shaman were also riding Horses and Wolves in WC3. They didn't get to be mounted at all times. Probably because it wasn't an ability. The Tinker's mech IS an ability.



Really? I just linked you to all three Monk specs that had brewing abilities within them.

Also tea is a type of brew.



Sure, but there's no point for Demon Hunters to have a permanent Metamorphosis form. It kind of defeats the purpose of their concept.



Those are not broad classes.



I'm not sure that's true. I believe that part of Mechagnomes unpopularity is that no current class fits it. A Tinker class is tailor made for that race, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of Mechagnome tinkers rival Vulpera Tinkers.



But it's not just the tech, it's the theme. A whole bunch of medieval races running around with laser guns and tech explosives gives you the exact same problem that mechs do.




Well why wouldn't it? What would attract a new player to WoW at this point? The classes of course. Now what if that person scrolls through the class list and doesn't find a class that interests them? They're probably not going to stay with the game.



Well no, let's stick with Varian because he's kind of the point; He's a human warrior among a few other human warriors who can stand toe to toe with a Tauren. I'm not aware of any Gnome or Goblin heroes who are warriors. Outside of a few mages, every prominent Goblin or Gnome I run across is either inside a machine, or using a machine.

This is even the case for new players who do that new 1-10 Exile's Reach zone. When you first encounter a Goblin or Gnome depending on faction, they're once again using technology. It's a wacky and fun little sequence that really highlights the whimsical nature of science fiction and tech in WoW. However, I began to wonder what if a new player really loves that experience and wants to play as these whacky inventors? Is there anything for them in the class lineup? The answer would be a resounding no.

That's the problem.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes because I'm comparing those concepts to other classes. Others are comparing the Tinker to a profession.



What's your problem with midgets?

Anyway, I'm sure that over the course of many pages, all discussions take multiple twists and turns.



Well that's incorrect. It is a fact that the last three expansion classes were based on WC3 heroes. It is also a fact that the last two heroes to have no abilities ever appear in the class lineup are the Goblin Alchemist and the Goblin Tinker.



There's no need to insult autistic people.



Yeah, about 80% of those concepts aren't viable. If that makes you upset, I don't know what to tell you.



Actually we were having a rather nice discussion a few pages back about class mechanics. I'm also rather enjoying my conversation with Jellmoo.



Nah, you just misunderstood; I said that it's rather difficult to argue for a class concept with no abilities to speak of, and no lore character to base on. The reason Dragonsworn has some legs is because of Alexstraza, Chromie, and Deathwing in HotS providing a surprisingly consistent ability set, and Wrathion being a rather strong candidate for a lore character. The lore to back it up are the multiple dragons who take on mortal disguises in order to interact with the factions.

I personally don't see any other way you do that class. Anything else would be woefully generic, and heavily overlap with existing classes, since dragon-aligned abilities already exist within the class lineup. The ability to be an actual dragon though? That's quite unique.



Well you really can't use that argument against the Tinker since there's plenty lore to back it up.

1. you essentially just proved my point

2. those lore characters ARE ACTUAL DRAGONS!!!! that is a race. For someone who knows the difference between a class and a profession you seem to have an issue with the race barrier.

3. you arent blizzard so you are literally just sharing opinions much like your concept. you dont decide what is viable. You dont decide what is next. You are no better or worse than the other nerds in this thread.

4. what is your fetish with gnomes and goblins and why do you have to spread it to WoW. You change your stance depending on your support.

[Triceron]

2. those lore characters ARE ACTUAL DRAGONS!!!! that is a race. For someone who knows the difference between a class and a profession you seem to have an issue with the race barrier.

A race can still be a class. The lines aren't drawn in the sand here if that's how the game wants to define it.

Forsaken are an individual Undead race, Death Knight is all Undead races as a class. What difference does it make here?

[Revamp Man]

A race can still be a class. The lines aren't drawn in the sand here if that's how the game wants to define it.

Forsaken are an individual Undead race, Death Knight is all Undead races as a class. What difference does it make here?

he described a race as the class concept
thats like calling a human a class

death knights are not just undead

[Teriz]

Game mechanics are useless when discussing lore. Because gameplay is not lore. So we're back to my original point: you have a claim you always repeat, and yet never demonstrated, without resorting to game mechanics.

No it's not. For example, Paladins only have Holy-based class abilities. That's because their lore states that they're holy warriors. Shaman have elemental abilities because their lore states that they use the elements to fight. Druids can shapeshift and have nature powers because that's their lore.

I'm not seeing how game mechanics are useless when discussing lore. Clearly they're intertwined when it comes to what classes do.

Also, don't think I didn't notice you conveniently ignoring the lore that says that engineers are inventors too, and all my other arguments.

I'm ignoring it because it's semantics. I'm also ignoring the rest of your semantic arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

1. you essentially just proved my point

2. those lore characters ARE ACTUAL DRAGONS!!!! that is a race. For someone who knows the difference between a class and a profession you seem to have an issue with the race barrier.

3. you arent blizzard so you are literally just sharing opinions much like your concept. you dont decide what is viable. You dont decide what is next. You are no better or worse than the other nerds in this thread.

4. what is your fetish with gnomes and goblins and why do you have to spread it to WoW. You change your stance depending on your support.

Since I have no idea what "point" I proved, I'll start at #2;

2. You seem confused. The goal of the Dragonsworn class is to emulate a dragon. What better way to emulate a dragon than actually BEING a dragon? Also the class is pretty much a reverse druid. Instead of mortal races turning into a creature, the creature becomes a mortal race.

3. While I'm not Blizzard, it's quite clear you're never going to see a Priestess of the Moon or Blademaster class in the game for a variety of reasons.

4. I believe that the Tinker class should be exclusively Goblins, Gnomes, and their allied races for a variety of reasons. The main issue being preserving the texture of WoW. You do that by having the technology class stand out, yet still fit the game. The class won't fit the game if you have Orcs and Elves piloting mech suits.

[Revamp Man]

No it's not. For example, Paladins only have Holy-based class abilities. That's because their lore states that they're holy warriors. Shaman have elemental abilities because their lore states that they use the elements to fight. Druids can shapeshift and have nature powers because that's their lore.

I'm not seeing how game mechanics are useless when discussing lore. Clearly they're intertwined when it comes to what classes do.




I'm ignoring it because it's semantics. I'm also ignoring the rest of your semantic arguments.

- - - Updated - - -



Since I have no idea what "point" I proved, I'll start at #2;

2. You seem confused. The goal of the Dragonsworn class is to emulate a dragon. What better way to emulate a dragon than actually BEING a dragon? Also the class is pretty much a reverse druid. Instead of mortal races turning into a creature, the creature becomes a mortal race.

3. While I'm not Blizzard, it's quite clear you're never going to see a Priestess of the Moon or Blademaster class in the game for a variety of reasons.

4. I believe that the Tinker class should be exclusively Goblins, Gnomes, and their allied races for a variety of reasons. The main issue being preserving the texture of WoW. You do that by having the technology class stand out, yet still fit the game. The class won't fit the game if you have Orcs and Elves piloting mech suits.

2. maybe the dragonsworn calss is using draconic magic since it doesnt exist we dont know

3. why not? We are setting up a night warrior class if you pay attention to the lore surrounding tyrande right now

4. that is your opinion

my point is you discard any and all opinions that dont line up with you as impossible based on your interpretation of what blizzard might do similar to how you said the feel of wow will be messed up if a race over 3 feet pilots a mech...even though we have mech mounts. You say we wont get priestess of the moon yet you ignore the fact we were told in game "the only way to save the night warrior is to split the power" and thus could make a priestess of the moon as a spec of night warrior. the dragonsworn class is emulating a dragon and thus needs a dragon form....even though that causes graphical issues and issues with small doors and since you dont think mechs should scale to a regular size you wouldnt think dragon form scale and thus cause issues with a door but you use the dragon lore character as an example.

you use wrathion as a dragonsworn example but if someone uses sylvanas as a dark ranger example you scream "no no no"

- - - Updated - - -

Game mechanics are useless when discussing lore. Because gameplay is not lore. So we're back to my original point: you have a claim you always repeat, and yet never demonstrated, without resorting to game mechanics.

Also, don't think I didn't notice you conveniently ignoring the lore that says that engineers are inventors too, and all my other arguments.

if it doesnt fit his opinion he ignores it

[Unbelievable]

You are no better or worse than the other nerds in this thread.

He's an annoying nerd.
I'm a nice nerd.

3. While I'm not Blizzard, it's quite clear you're never going to see a Priestess of the Moon or Blademaster class in the game for a variety of reasons.

4. I believe that the Tinker class should be exclusively Goblins, Gnomes, and their allied races for a variety of reasons. The main issue being preserving the texture of WoW. You do that by having the technology class stand out, yet still fit the game. The class won't fit the game if you have Orcs and Elves piloting mech suits.

3. Keep telling that yourself. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

4. Or primitive foxes piloting a mech.

3. why not? We are setting up a night warrior class if you pay attention to the lore surrounding tyrande right now

He is short sighted. That's why.

[Teriz]

2. maybe the dragonsworn calss is using draconic magic since it doesnt exist we don't know

Give me an example of "draconic magic". Like what makes magic "draconic" unlike nature, elemental, fire, fel, etc.? The only differentiating factor I can think of is that it comes from dragons.

3. why not? We are setting up a night warrior class if you pay attention to the lore surrounding tyrande right now

Really? And what can this Night Warrior do exactly that warrants it becoming it's own class with multiple specs?

4. that is your opinion

I never said otherwise.

my point is you discard any and all opinions that dont line up with you as impossible based on your interpretation of what blizzard might do similar to how you said the feel of wow will be messed up if a race over 3 feet pilots a mech...even though we have mech mounts. You say we wont get priestess of the moon yet you ignore the fact we were told in game "the only way to save the night warrior is to split the power" and thus could make a priestess of the moon as a spec of night warrior. the dragonsworn class is emulating a dragon and thus needs a dragon form....even though that causes graphical issues and issues with small doors and since you dont think mechs should scale to a regular size you wouldnt think dragon form scale and thus cause issues with a door but you use the dragon lore character as an example.

Yes, the size of a dragon would definitely be a problem. I do agree with that. However, in MY dragonsworn concept, the only permanent form is travel form which wouldn't enter buildings anyway. Also if the dragon is a little smaller than mount size in raids and dungeons, it shouldn't
take up too much space.

We won't get priestess of the moon for a variety of reasons. Mainly it's too racially specific and it's not well defined. The WC3 version of the concept is split up between Druids and Hunters as is the HotS version, so again, what exactly would this class do?

you use wrathion as a dragonsworn example but if someone uses sylvanas as a dark ranger example you scream "no no no"

Because we don't just have Wrathion. We have Chromie, Kairozdormu, Nefarian, Kalecgos, Zidormi, and others who are exactly like Wrathion, just a member of a different aspect.

Sylvanas is the ONLY Dark Ranger with Banshee powers, and having Banshee powers isn't a requirement to be a Dark Ranger. Players currently can be a Dark Ranger like Nathanos if they so desire.

[Revamp Man]

Give me an example of "draconic magic". Like what makes magic "draconic" unlike nature, elemental, fire, fel, etc.? The only differentiating factor I can think of is that it comes from dragons.



Really? And what can this Night Warrior do exactly that warrants it becoming it's own class with multiple specs?



I never said otherwise.



Yes, the size of a dragon would definitely be a problem. I do agree with that. However, in MY dragonsworn concept, the only permanent form is travel form which wouldn't enter buildings anyway. Also if the dragon is a little smaller than mount size in raids and dungeons, it shouldn't
take up too much space.

We won't get priestess of the moon for a variety of reasons. Mainly it's too racially specific and it's not well defined. The WC3 version of the concept is split up between Druids and Hunters as is the HotS version, so again, what exactly would this class do?



Because we don't just have Wrathion. We have Chromie, Kairozdormu, Nefarian, Kalecgos, Zidormi, and others who are exactly like Wrathion, just a member of a different aspect.

Sylvanas is the ONLY Dark Ranger with Banshee powers, and having Banshee powers isn't a requirement to be a Dark Ranger. Players currently can be a Dark Ranger like Nathanos if they so desire.

1. yeah thats kinda the point. draconic magic is based from the dragons so for a dragonsworn they channel that magic the same way a paladin channels magic from the light and shamans do it from nature. Do you want examples of the differences through other media??

2. use glaives, from the look we have they would use lunar magic similar to the boss encounter in legion, the leader is a priestess or at least was so you figure healing magic since she did that in the past as well.

3. you say its your opinion but at the same time say "that cant happen" you just think it cant

4. hes a dragon again a race not a class however if you want him to be used as a class then you accept sylvanas as the example of a class and her underling in the warfront as an example as well since they had similar powers