1. #3161
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Rejected on the basis of denialism. Nothing more, nothing less.
    No. We reject it because it's an opinion we do not agree with. Because we have not been provided conclusive evidence that your opinion merits belief.

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

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

    It's you.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  2. #3162
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You didn't need to, I did it for you. Saying that Reeves is a suitable stand in for a Tinker with a mech is an absurd statement, because the Reeves is non viable on multiple levels.



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



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



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

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

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

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

  3. #3163
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Viable or not, it is in the Engineering professions. Therefore, covering that element of the Tinker and blurring the line between a Tinker and an Engineer.
    If its not viable it doesn't matter.

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

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

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

  4. #3164
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If its not viable it doesn't matter.
    In your opinion.

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

    And for clarification: before it was made into a playable class.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2021-01-20 at 03:48 AM.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  5. #3165
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    I believe Blizzard's approach in terms of the mounted heroes was that all classes should be on foot, and out of combat they can mount. Seems like a smart way to do balance. Considering I've never seen a thread petitioning for DKs to be permanently mounted, I would say it was a wise design decision.
    I'm not saying that it wasn't the right choice, but I'm saying that it's well within the realm of possibility that somebody, somewhere thought that Death Knight mounted combat was awesome and was disappointed it wasn't included, and that Blizzard made the concious choice to change what was present in WC3 to fit their new vision.

    Well these are the last three WoW expansion classes;



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. #3166
    Blizzard just decided to make some potential classes into professions instead. This is why alchemist isn't a class, enchanter isn't a class, and engineer (tinker) isn't a class.

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

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

  7. #3167
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If its not viable it doesn't matter.



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



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



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

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




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

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

  8. #3168
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Uh, if it has a different name, different gameplay, and a different purpose, then it's different than whatever you're comparing it to.
    Let's compare Warcraft 3's Death Knight hero unit's ultimate ability "Animate Dead" to World of Warcraft's Death Knight's "Army of the Dead" ability:
    • Different names: "Animate Dead" and "Army of the Dead".
    • Different functionalities:
      • Animate Dead:
        • Raises dead units;
        • Risen units have the exact same abilities they did while alive;
        • Risen units are immune to damage.
      • Army of the Dead:
        • Raises ghouls;
        • Ghouls have just basic auto-attacks;
        • Ghouls can be killed and have little health.
    • Different gameplay:
      • Animate Dead:
        • You can control the risen units.
      • Army of the Dead:
        • You cannot control the ghouls.

    Sounds to me that both abilities have different names and different gameplay. By your logic, they're not the same, hm?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  9. #3169
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    I'm not saying that it wasn't the right choice, but I'm saying that it's well within the realm of possibility that somebody, somewhere thought that Death Knight mounted combat was awesome and was disappointed it wasn't included, and that Blizzard made the concious choice to change what was present in WC3 to fit their new vision.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    Blizzard just decided to make some potential classes into professions instead. This is why alchemist isn't a class, enchanter isn't a class, and engineer (tinker) isn't a class.
    Then where aren’t the abilities from the Tinker and Alchemist hero within those professions?

  10. #3170
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    But again, GMOD, Blackfuse’s shredder, and Gazlowe’s shredder aren’t janky, falling apart, etc. We would expect the Tinker to be more in line with those mechs over the Sky Golem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. #3171
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Actually, it does matter, in terms of lore.
    Really? Where in lore is Reeves Combat Module mentioned? Where in lore does it say that Tinkers pilot Reeves? Where do we see Gazlowe, Mekkatorque, or Gallywix piloting a Reeves Combat Module?

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

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

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

    - - - Updated - - -

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

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



    GMOD's animation is far smoother.

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

    - - - Updated - - -

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

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

  12. #3172
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Really? Where in lore is Reeves Combat Module mentioned? Where in lore does it say that Tinkers pilot Reeves? Where do we see Gazlowe, Mekkatorque, or Gallywix piloting a Reeves Combat Module?



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    GMOD's animation is far smoother.



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

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

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

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

  13. #3173
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Reaves is a Shredder. Shredders are mechs used by Goblins.




    Reeves isn't a shredder.

    You said they were throwing it.
    Launching a Rocket from a bow does not make sense. It comes to show you how little they care about visual representation. Example: Rocket Barrage's description vs Its animation.
    You said they were throwing it. In fact your argument was that throwing a bomb is no different than a machine launching a bomb.

    Also launching a rocket from a bow makes perfect sense when the original concept was a stick of dynamite tied to an arrow, which is still preset on the ability icon;



    Yes but, the Tinker is composed of Goblin and Gnomish engineering, respectively. Otherwise, it would just be a general technology class. Example: the differences in abilities between Mekkatorque and Gazlowe.
    Again, the only difference between Goblin and Gnome you're going to see is mech forms. I would like to believe that Blizzard would go further than that, but I doubt it.

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

    Yet, you ignore all the sparks, smoke and shaking engine parts i mentioned. Far from being a clean mech.

    Not to mention you, completely, ignored the parts where i showed you that Blackfuse's and Gazlowe's mechs shake just as much as the Sky Golem.
    Because we don't have examples of their complete animation like we do for GMOD and Sky Golem. Further, GMOD is the newer Goblin Mech and a Tinker is more likely to follow that design than the Shredder.

    You forget to mention the reasons why.
    Mists of Pandaria was received by the general audience as a bad expansion, mostly due to the existence of "cute and fluffy" Pandarens. They had to deviate from that theme in order to maintain their subscribers.
    Yeah that had nothing to do with it. The patches were planned before MoP was even announced.

    By the way, Throne of Thunder and Mogu, in general, are a Pandaren theme. They were their mortal enemies.
    Yeah, but that's not being centered on Pandaren. If it were centered on Pandaren, the Thunder King would be an evil Pandaren himself.

  14. #3174
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post




    Reeves isn't a shredder.



    You said they were throwing it. In fact your argument was that throwing a bomb is no different than a machine launching a bomb.

    Also launching a rocket from a bow makes perfect sense when the original concept was a stick of dynamite tied to an arrow, which is still preset on the ability icon;





    Again, the only difference between Goblin and Gnome you're going to see is mech forms. I would like to believe that Blizzard would go further than that, but I doubt it.



    Cool. Play an Orc Arms warrior and pretend to you heart's content.



    Because we don't have examples of their complete animation like we do for GMOD and Sky Golem. Further, GMOD is the newer Goblin Mech and a Tinker is more likely to follow that design than the Shredder.



    Yeah that had nothing to do with it. The patches were planned before MoP was even announced.



    Yeah, but that's not being centered on Pandaren. If it were centered on Pandaren, the Thunder King would be an evil Pandaren himself.
    Reaves
    Image of Reaves
    Race Shredder (Mechanical)
    Level 110
    Reaction Alliance Horde
    Status Alive

    Gameplay-wise, damage-wise and appearance-wise it might have the same range, damage and visuals.
    Yet, they picked a Goblin Rocket animation, when they could have just used an arrow.

    Unlikely. They are going to combine Mekkatorque style of abilities with Gazlowe style of abilities. You're gonna notice the differences.

    "Cool. Play a Gnome Engineer and pretend to you heart's content."

    We don't? just press Animation: Tap to Load... on the 3D model viewer.

    I like how you switched to G.M.O.D and, suddenly, dumped Siegecrafter Blackfuse and Gazlowe, even though it was used by Gallywix, who isn't a Tinker.

    Not everything has to be about Pandaren. Otherwise, it would have been, extremely, monotonic and boring as hell. The fact that we got a Pandaren race, a Monk class (Which, is based on Pandaren), Pandaria as a continent and a famous Pandaren (Chen) on the box and cinematic trailer, shows you how much Pandaren that expansion was.

  15. #3175
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
    Reaves
    Image of Reaves
    Race Shredder (Mechanical)
    Level 110
    Reaction Alliance Horde
    Status Alive
    Yeah, that's false. Reeves is a Reaver (hence its name) and Shredders aren't a "race". Where'd you pull that from?

    Gameplay-wise, damage-wise and appearance-wise it might have the same range, damage and visuals.
    Yet, they picked a Goblin Rocket animation, when they could have just used an arrow.
    And they picked a bow to shoot it with.

    Unlikely. They are going to combine Mekkatorque style of abilities with Gazlowe style of abilities. You're gonna notice the differences.
    No, they're going to use the Tinker abilities from WC3 and HotS. Those will be the foundation of the class' abilities.

    "Cool. Play a Gnome Engineer and pretend to you heart's content."
    A transmogged Orc arms warrior is viable. A gnome using engineering items is not.

    I like how you switched to G.M.O.D and, suddenly, dumped Siegecrafter Blackfuse and Gazlowe, even though it was used by Gallywix, who isn't a Tinker.
    GMOD wasn't built by Gallywix. Also GMOD represented an entire series of newer Goblin mechs. It also needs to be mentioned that the Tinker class wouldn't be using shredders.

    Not everything has to be about Pandaren. Otherwise, it would have been, extremely, monotonic and boring as hell. The fact that we got a Pandaren race, a Monk class (Which, is based on Pandaren), Pandaria as a continent and a famous Pandaren (Chen) on the box and cinematic trailer, shows you how much Pandaren that expansion was.
    But the expansion wasn't centered on Pandaren, that was the point.

  16. #3176
    All of you ppl want tinker, but it won't be something cool like WoW version of iron man, it will be some turret-deploying, grenade throwing, claw-robot-as-a-backpack idiot like Gazlowe model from HotS. Do you really want something like that?
    They won't let you play in a robot.
    How is it fun?

  17. #3177
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Shedaar View Post
    All of you ppl want tinker, but it won't be something cool like WoW version of iron man, it will be some turret-deploying, grenade throwing, claw-robot-as-a-backpack idiot like Gazlowe model from HotS. Do you really want something like that?
    They won't let you play in a robot.
    How is it fun?
    The mech form is the Tinker ultimate ability from WC3. So yes it will be implemented. In fact, my money is on the claw pack being completely replaced by the mech because in BFA Blizzard added various mechanics to mech-using NPCs. You see this with Gazlowe in Island Expeditions, the Mech Jockeys in MOTHERLODE, and Exarch Orelis during the Mag'har recruit scenario. It would be rather redundant to have a claw pack AND a mech.

  18. #3178
    Runemaster would be an obvious option, alongside any name you want for pure buffing classes.

  19. #3179
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Uh, the Death Knight wasn’t the first concept to have that removed. Again, Mage and Shaman heroes were also mounted.

    Did I forget to mention that they’re not abilities?
    Sure, and fans of those classes may have been disappointed too. Who knows? The point remains that something was changed from WC3 to WoW. And whether something was an ability or not is an arbitrary distinction to make when at the end of the day the issue is a changing of class fantasy.

    True, instead of getting an ability that allows them to summon multiple undead minions, they get a spell to summon multiple undead minions....
    No. Instead of getting an ability that let them reanimate the corpses of powerful foes that had been slain, rendering them indestructible monstrosities that could be controlled to wreak havoc on enemies, they got an ability that let the spawn a bunch of weak minions that mindless zerg. These abilities are very much not the same.

    It allowed you to control individual parts at first, but I believed that was changed in Legion, 2 expansions after it first appeared.
    I don't remember that at all, but granted I didn't play a WW in either MoP or WoD so you could be right. I am pretty sure though that the Storm image created didn't get a ranged attack to park itself away from the fight and go pew pew pew.

    The Warlock version did. Blizzard took the DH version from HotS. So yes, while not EXACTLY the same, the theme of the ability remains the same. There’s no reason why a permanent mech form would cause Blizzard to scrap the concept altogether.
    But Demon Hunters didn't get the Warlock version (no matter how much I may wish that they did). They got the version they got, without a ranged attack. And you're right. There's no reason that they couldn't have recreated the ability more directly. Except they didn't. Kinda indicates that they are open to changing the Ultimate abilities to suit whatever character narrative they want.

    Despite balance and technical issues, Blizzard was able to faithfully recreate the ultimates of the other expansion class additions.
    Except they didn't. Three times out of three when it comes to classes added after the fact, they did not "faithfully recreate" the ultimates of the classes. They created an approximation of each, with each having distinct and key differences over what was present in WC3.

    But again, GMOD, Blackfuse’s shredder, and Gazlowe’s shredder aren’t janky, falling apart, etc. We would expect the Tinker to be more in line with those mechs over the Sky Golem.
    You really overestimate how much better looking those mechs are though, They're all pretty janky and filled with Goblin aesthetic. Going back to the example from before, certainly to the point that a random Orc farmer would have no real way of differentiating between them if they showed up at his farm. Giant scary Goblin mech 1 or Giant scary Goblin mech 2 are largely the same to him.

    The Claw Pack already launches bombs and whacks people on the head. It did that in WC3.
    That was kind of my point though. It's more than just "thing that turns into a mech". For my money, what they can make it do is a lot more interesting than that.

    Just because it takes place in Undermine doesn’t mean it needs to center on Goblins. Mists of Pandaria didn’t center on Pandarens for example.
    The rise and fall of the Pandaren empire was pretty much the central story of the expansion though. While an Undermine expansion could have stuff other than Goblins involved, the central theme of such a thing would absolutely be Gobin related given their history. I just don't see Blizzard making an entire expansion around such an unpopular race. I'd think it far more likely it would get the Mechagon treatment. Just my two cents though.

    Uh, we just got Demon Hunters 4 years ago, and the current expansion revolves around Sylvanas with special appearances by Uther, Arthas, Vol’jon, Kelthuzad, and Karl’thas whom were all WC3 characters.

    How can you say they’ve moved far beyond it?
    It's rather telling that 5 of those characters are dead though, with most having little in game presence in quite a while, and they return in an expansion centered around visiting the dead. Look, I'm not saying that there's zero chance or reason to revisit the past, just that there isn't the same need to. When the game launched, it didn't have history of its own. So it took very liberally from source material. The game absolutely does have history now though. It has an identity and narrative that is uniquely WoW. The need to go back to WC3 just isn't there anymore. They can build entire expansions based on the story and lore within WoW if they want. They don't have to. They can absolutely return to WC3 and snag more. I hope they do. I want a Tinker class too. I'm just saying that they don't have to.

    Gotta say, the mech sounds better, and far more interesting. That might be because the mech-based Tinker is actually Blizzard’s tech hero concept.
    Agree to disagree then. A Mech based concept sounds sci fi and bland to me. And the idea of what a tech class can do and what stuff they can make is littered throughout WoW.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shedaar View Post
    All of you ppl want tinker, but it won't be something cool like WoW version of iron man, it will be some turret-deploying, grenade throwing, claw-robot-as-a-backpack idiot like Gazlowe model from HotS. Do you really want something like that?
    They won't let you play in a robot.
    How is it fun?
    Yes. Yes I do. One of the coolest character classes I've ever played in an MMO was the Engineer in GW2. Having an approximation of that, but whackier so as to better fit the WoW tech aesthetic, would be amazing. I don't want to play as Iron Man in WoW.

  20. #3180
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Sure, and fans of those classes may have been disappointed too. Who knows? The point remains that something was changed from WC3 to WoW. And whether something was an ability or not is an arbitrary distinction to make when at the end of the day the issue is a changing of class fantasy.
    Yeah I've never seen anyone ever complain about this until now. Is there any thread you can point to where there's a group of DK players complaining over them not being able to permanently ride their undead horses? If not, this seems much ado about nothing.

    No. Instead of getting an ability that let them reanimate the corpses of powerful foes that had been slain, rendering them indestructible monstrosities that could be controlled to wreak havoc on enemies, they got an ability that let the spawn a bunch of weak minions that mindless zerg. These abilities are very much not the same.
    Well yeah, mainly because the latter ability is far more balanced and sensible. In the end it still serves the same purpose; Allows the DK to summon multiple undead minions at once.

    I don't remember that at all, but granted I didn't play a WW in either MoP or WoD so you could be right. I am pretty sure though that the Storm image created didn't get a ranged attack to park itself away from the fight and go pew pew pew.
    I'm not sure of the ranged attack, but yes you could control each spirit individually in earlier iterations. Blizzard simplified the ability to its current version.

    But Demon Hunters didn't get the Warlock version (no matter how much I may wish that they did). They got the version they got, without a ranged attack. And you're right. There's no reason that they couldn't have recreated the ability more directly. Except they didn't. Kinda indicates that they are open to changing the Ultimate abilities to suit whatever character narrative they want.
    The point though is that Blizzard did fully translate the WC3 ultimate ability into WoW.

    Except they didn't. Three times out of three when it comes to classes added after the fact, they did not "faithfully recreate" the ultimates of the classes. They created an approximation of each, with each having distinct and key differences over what was present in WC3.
    See above. By all accounts they did.

    You really overestimate how much better looking those mechs are though, They're all pretty janky and filled with Goblin aesthetic. Going back to the example from before, certainly to the point that a random Orc farmer would have no real way of differentiating between them if they showed up at his farm. Giant scary Goblin mech 1 or Giant scary Goblin mech 2 are largely the same to him.
    So you're saying an Orc wouldn't be able to tell these two mechs apart;




    C'mon man.

    That was kind of my point though. It's more than just "thing that turns into a mech". For my money, what they can make it do is a lot more interesting than that.
    Or they can completely skip the Claw Pack part and just have the Tinker in the mech. That's the entire point of the concept.


    The rise and fall of the Pandaren empire was pretty much the central story of the expansion though. While an Undermine expansion could have stuff other than Goblins involved, the central theme of such a thing would absolutely be Gobin related given their history. I just don't see Blizzard making an entire expansion around such an unpopular race. I'd think it far more likely it would get the Mechagon treatment. Just my two cents though.
    Well think back to what we were doing in Pandaria. The Pandaren were just there to guide and help us. We were fighting an empire of sentient bugs, exploring ancient Mogu dungeons, dealing with an army of dino-riding trolls, and remnants of an Old God. When it was all over, we had to deal with a Horde rebellion and take out Garrosh. I wouldn't call that an expansion centered on Pandaren.

    Also it sort of helps that MoP is often regarded across the board as one of WoW's best expansions, despite the bitching of some in the community.

    It's rather telling that 5 of those characters are dead though, with most having little in game presence in quite a while, and they return in an expansion centered around visiting the dead. Look, I'm not saying that there's zero chance or reason to revisit the past, just that there isn't the same need to. When the game launched, it didn't have history of its own. So it took very liberally from source material. The game absolutely does have history now though. It has an identity and narrative that is uniquely WoW. The need to go back to WC3 just isn't there anymore. They can build entire expansions based on the story and lore within WoW if they want. They don't have to. They can absolutely return to WC3 and snag more. I hope they do. I want a Tinker class too. I'm just saying that they don't have to.
    Well the expansion before this one had about half of its content dedicated to Jaina Proudmoore dealing with the decision of killing her father, which occurred in WC3, Sylvanas dealing with her death which also happened in WC3, the return of Thrall who was introduced in WC3, and the return of Azshara, a character first mentioned in WC3.

    So again, it's kind of hard to say that they've moved "far beyond" WC3. That statement simply is not true.

    Agree to disagree then. A Mech based concept sounds sci fi and bland to me. And the idea of what a tech class can do and what stuff they can make is littered throughout WoW.
    Why would a mech-based concept seem sci-fi to you when we have stuff like this;



    In WoW currently?

Posting Permissions

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