1. #5961
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Wrong. Rogues and warriors will also be able to cast Withering Fire: "Equip: Every 5 shots, trigger Withering Fire, striking up to 5 enemies in front of you for 195 Shadow damage." In other words, it counts auto-attacks as well, meaning warriors/rogues auto-shooting with the bow will trigger Withering Fire.
    Warriors and Rogues can't do this any more. They used to have a 'Shoot' ability that has been since removed.

    They can equip bows, they can auto attack, but they would be using it as a melee weapon and not through the 'Shoot' function. I doubt this perk would apply outside of Hunters, otherwise they would use less specific wording.

  2. #5962
    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
    We don’t need WC3, yet every expansion class has heavily used WC3 abilities, design, characters, etc?
    Coincidence is a thing that exists. Plus it could be argued that the reasoning was "hey, we're making a paladin class for WoW, and we have this paladin unit in WC3. Why not use their abilities in the WoW class?" instead of "We need the WC3 paladin's units to make this WoW paladin class a reality" like you claim it is.

    See above.
    We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.

    We’ll see soon enough. I just like to know in what scenario would a Rogue or Warrior use a bow for anything but goofing around....
    And now you're moving the goalposts. First your argument was "be able to use it", because you thought (erroneously) that only the hunter class could use those items. But now that you have been proven wrong, now the argument is "use it for anything but goofing around".
    "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...

  3. #5963
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Coincidence is a thing that exists.
    Except it would have to be multiple coincidences at once, since it is WC3 abilities, WC3 characters, and WC3 design all at the same time. That’s not a coincidence, that’s purposeful design.

    You are once again creating irrelevant arguments to bypass the fact that you have no hero character for a Bard with unique abilities. Meanwhile the main candidates for a future WoW class can easily meet that requirement.

    We don't need abilities or lore characters for a concept to be viable. The runemaster is undeniable proof of that.
    The Runemaster never became a WoW class, and we have zero idea of what it was or based upon, so it in fact supports my argument.


    And now you're moving the goalposts. First your argument was "be able to use it", because you thought (erroneously) that only the hunter class could use those items. But now that you have been proven wrong, now the argument is "use it for anything but goofing around".
    See Triceron’s post.

  4. #5964
    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
    Except it would have to be multiple coincidences at once, since it is WC3 abilities, WC3 characters, and WC3 design all at the same time. That’s not a coincidence, that’s purposeful design.
    Not really. It's just a single time that has to be a coincidence: the concept coincide with an already existing WC3 hero. Everything else that happens is a consequence of that one coincidence. Not to mention that "WC3 hero" has been already debunked by Blizzard themselves, considering they've shown that they didn't need lore heroes for the base WoW classes, or for the expansion classes, thanks to their story about the runemaster concept.

    You are once again creating irrelevant arguments to bypass the fact that you have no hero character for a Bard with unique abilities.
    One: that is not a fact. That is an opinion
    Two: Blizzard has already stated we don't need an already established hero.
    Three: as a consequence of above, Blizzard has also shown that we don't need abilities.

    Meanwhile the main candidates for a future WoW class can easily meet that requirement.
    Runemaster proves you wrong.

    The Runemaster never became a WoW class,
    It was considered. And if it was considered, it means all those requirements you insist are factual (abilities, lore hero, etc) have been shown to be nothing but BS.

    See Triceron’s post.
    I will address it once I am able to log into the game.
    "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. #5965
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Not really. It's just a single time that has to be a coincidence: the concept coincide with an already existing WC3 hero. Everything else that happens is a consequence of that one coincidence. Not to mention that "WC3 hero" has been already debunked by Blizzard themselves, considering they've shown that they didn't need lore heroes for the base WoW classes, or for the expansion classes, thanks to their story about the runemaster concept.
    It’s happened three separate times with three separate classes in three separate expansions.

    And no, Runemaster isn’t a counter example because it’s not a WoW class.

    One: that is not a fact. That is an opinion
    Two: Blizzard has already stated we don't need an already established hero.
    Three: as a consequence of above, Blizzard has also shown that we don't need abilities.
    1. If it’s not a fact, show me the expansion class without a hero character that had unique abilities applied to their eventual class.

    Please post Blizzard’s statements for 2 and 3.

    Runemaster proves you wrong.
    Post a link to the WoW Runemaster class.

    It was considered. And if it was considered, it means all those requirements you insist are factual (abilities, lore hero, etc) have been shown to be nothing but BS.
    Completely irrelevant since it never became a WoW class and we have no idea what concepts, characters, abilities, etc. were planned for it.

    You’re just ignoring facts at this point, so I’m done with this back and forth.

  6. #5966
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Blizzard is the only one that decides what classes get added to the game. If anyone is denying their possibility, it would be Blizzard, not any of the fans.

    Fans can't actually deny the possibility of anything. You can argue against a Blademaster, but you can't deny its possibility either. That ultimately comes down to Blizzard.

    I mean, look what happened at all the people who denied the possibility of Demon Hunters. They had zero power to actually deny them from existing.
    you play around but didn't answer the question

    we we have zero power to deny because we are not blizzard, might as well shut down all the forums and discussions about the game, but thats not the point, the point is tinker is likely or not, as a playable class, and they are, at least, more than the same class with another name for sure.

  7. #5967
    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
    It’s happened three separate times with three separate classes in three separate expansions.

    And no, Runemaster isn’t a counter example because it’s not a WoW class.
    It is a counter example because, if everything you said about class concept viability was true, the runemaster would not even be considered, much less be one of the top three, beating popular concepts such as the demon hunter and tinker. That is a fact you cannot escape.

    1. If it’s not a fact,
    This isn't how it works. "I'm right unless you prove me wrong" is not how truth and honesty works, Teriz.

    Please post Blizzard’s statements for 2 and 3.
    When they considered the runemaster a viable and possible concept.

    Post a link to the WoW Runemaster class.


    Completely irrelevant since it never became a WoW class and we have no idea what concepts, characters, abilities, etc. were planned for it.
    Stop trying to handwave away facts that debunk your claims. I'll repeat: if everything you said about class concept viability was true, the runemaster would not even be considered, much less be one of the top three, beating popular concepts such as the demon hunter and tinker.

    You’re just ignoring facts at this point,
    Those levels of projection are so high and so intense that on its own it should be an infractable offense.
    "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...

  8. #5968
    I seriously can't tell what people here are even arguing about anymore.
    Goodbye-Forever-MMO-Champ
    Quote Originally Posted by HighlordJohnstone View Post
    Alleria's whispers start climaxing

  9. #5969
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    you play around but didn't answer the question

    we we have zero power to deny because we are not blizzard, might as well shut down all the forums and discussions about the game, but thats not the point, the point is tinker is likely or not, as a playable class, and they are, at least, more than the same class with another name for sure.
    It is the point though.

    Blizzard can make anything playable, Blizzard is the ones that defines what goes into the game and what doesn't.

    If we compare the two concepts of Demon Hunter and Tinker, Tinker wins out at everything. Tinker has open gameplay to explore, Tinker can be designed to tank, DPS and heal, Tinker has a theme that no other class shares. Demon Hunter has gameplay overlap with Warlock, Monk and Rogues, Metamorphosis is already on the Warlock, and Rogues can already use Warglaives of Azzinoth. And despite all this, Blizzard chose to make Demon Hunters playable before they made a Tinker.

    As fans we can decide to talk about one class having more possibility than another class, but Blizzard is the ones who chooses it. Tinker had more possibility than Demon Hunter ever would, but Demon Hunters got added before Tinker. That means Blizzard isn't operating on the same assumption of possibility that everyone else is using. They did what most people didn't expect and added a class that had a lot of theme overlap, took abilities away from Warlocks and Monk, and made it with only 2 specs. They could have explored a Tinker class instead, but they didn't.

    When it comes down to it, Tinkers don't have more of a possibility than any other class. The chances are still 100% based on what Blizzard chooses for the theme of the upcoming expansion. We know they are tailoring the class picks to expansion story and setting, so much of the choices will have to be based on whatever comes next. And when it comes to an expansion that features Tinkers in the story and setting? The chances of that happening are quite low.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-04-20 at 06:21 AM.

  10. #5970
    Quote Originally Posted by Pebrocks The Warlock View Post
    I seriously can't tell what people here are even arguing about anymore.
    Teriz is either nuts or trolling everyone with fallacious and delusional arguments about how Tinker is some sort of big hit that has been foreshadowed since WC3 and deserves a long-awaited spotlight in the next expansion.

    Everyone else who voices reasonable opinions is somehow "less intelligent or more biased than him", which is a bit of a sad argument to the eyes of everyone reading this thread.

    The lore is leading to cosmic things and Danuser has multiple times pointed out that SL is the "springboard" to an even greater cosmology (eg. Bellular interview). Yet it somehow makes sense to suddenly turn 180 and make an expansion where midget races (apparently he thinks they are the only race deserving the honors of the Tinker class) overtake the narrative and that's something every person following the lore/story should want deep inside.

    Same thing every time the class topic is brought up. I used to be more triggered myself but at this point, I'm simply baffled at how someone like him is allowed to overwhelm every thread that refers to something where Tinker can fit in.

    It is getting extremely toxic at this point. I come to threads like this and instead of seeing imaginative speculation, I see moronic mental gymnastics about how Tinker is the real deal or whatever.

  11. #5971
    Quote Originally Posted by Pebrocks The Warlock View Post
    I seriously can't tell what people here are even arguing about anymore.


    On a real note, sometimes people have legitimate concerns/feedback...sometimes.

  12. #5972
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,822
    Quote Originally Posted by deviantcultist View Post
    Teriz is either nuts or trolling everyone with fallacious and delusional arguments about how Tinker is some sort of big hit that has been foreshadowed since WC3 and deserves a long-awaited spotlight in the next expansion.
    I would love to see some examples of these "fallacious and delusional" arguments.

    Typically if a class concept falls into the criteria of the previous three class inclusions, and happens to be a thematic that is non-existent in the current class lineup, I would argue that such a class concept has a rather high chance of inclusion. I do recognize that some posters prefer darker, more edgier themes, but that simply isn't the case for every one. I'm not even sure that after Demon Hunters, it's even in the majority anymore. I believe that most players desiring a new class want someone new and different, and definitely something that doesn't feel like the merging of existing concepts with a new slap of paint. The future class polling on this forum bears that out quite a bit.

    The lore is leading to cosmic things and Danuser has multiple times pointed out that SL is the "springboard" to an even greater cosmology (eg. Bellular interview). Yet it somehow makes sense to suddenly turn 180 and make an expansion where midget races (apparently he thinks they are the only race deserving the honors of the Tinker class) overtake the narrative and that's something every person following the lore/story should want deep inside.
    Simply because the lore is leading to cosmic things doesn't mean we're going to be experiencing those cosmic things in the next expansion, or the expansion after that. Bellular himself stated that himself and other players are a bit concerned about the ratcheting up of the threat and how things are getting a bit absurd. We're going to beat death, and I suppose the next step is defeating reality, order, and chaos? I think some players would prefer to explore the Dragon Isles, Tel Abim, or yes, even the Undermine instead of venturing off into space to fight literal gods.

  13. #5973
    Quote Originally Posted by Pebrocks The Warlock View Post
    I seriously can't tell what people here are even arguing about anymore.
    Eh I gave up arguing with the tinker fanboy

    Also anyone who claims it is fact that X class can’t exist


    Dragonsworn4Lyfe

  14. #5974
    a ranged dh so everyone loses their minds.

  15. #5975
    I honestly think they should add bard to the game but In all honesty blizzard is going to add whatever they want. The problem with these type of threads are certain individuals enter them and than derail the thread into their fan concept not letting telling everyone else they are wrong and it turns in to 100’s of pages of The same people arguing the same arguments.

  16. #5976
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,116
    Quote Originally Posted by razorpax View Post
    Eh I gave up arguing with the tinker fanboy

    Also anyone who claims it is fact that X class can’t exist


    Dragonsworn4Lyfe
    Tinker class will always be a boring shit idea and I hope it will never see daylight.

  17. #5977
    High Overlord Obvious10's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fishing on the Echo Isles
    Posts
    124
    I'm not sure if I would prefer a new separate class, or a new 4th / 5th spec of an existing class, for example a Demonhunter spec for Hunter? But if there are more variations thinkable for the DH (I can't?!), then a brand new class would be best and most fun.

    But my big wish-list of a new class/spec would be of a shaman tank, YES!. Something like an Earth Warden. He/she could tank by using a big elemental, or by using a bigger earth shield spell with a stoneskin totem and more..? I'm ok with both playstyles. But we have to be mobile, so a totem bind elemental would not be ideal, far from ideal.
    Saying this..... I also want updates for my totems, I want a different style totem for my Goblin shaman. The Goblin mechanical totems don't match the story behind my Tribal Goblin Shaman.....since how long can we use transmogs??? And we are still not being able to change the design of our totems......we have travelled all around Azeroth and beyond, in present, past and future...and death.....and we still have no clue at all of any other totem design...???? Weird, very weird...

  18. #5978
    A ranged class for starters all have been melee so far.
    Do you hear the voices too?

  19. #5979
    Quote Originally Posted by Alanar View Post
    Tinker class will always be a boring shit idea and I hope it will never see daylight.
    It might and it might not but personally I find a tech based class boring compared to a high fantasy class like dragonsworn (I mean actual mortals empowered by dragons like in the lore not bastard dragons with identity issues)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Obvious10 View Post
    I'm not sure if I would prefer a new separate class, or a new 4th / 5th spec of an existing class, for example a Demonhunter spec for Hunter? But if there are more variations thinkable for the DH (I can't?!), then a brand new class would be best and most fun.

    But my big wish-list of a new class/spec would be of a shaman tank, YES!. Something like an Earth Warden. He/she could tank by using a big elemental, or by using a bigger earth shield spell with a stoneskin totem and more..? I'm ok with both playstyles. But we have to be mobile, so a totem bind elemental would not be ideal, far from ideal.
    Saying this..... I also want updates for my totems, I want a different style totem for my Goblin shaman. The Goblin mechanical totems don't match the story behind my Tribal Goblin Shaman.....since how long can we use transmogs??? And we are still not being able to change the design of our totems......we have travelled all around Azeroth and beyond, in present, past and future...and death.....and we still have no clue at all of any other totem design...???? Weird, very weird...
    There are some classes where a 4th spec could fit the gaps like with monks and how one spec is represented by two celestials and two playstyles. There are also some classes which a new spec would cause weird overlap like druids and priests

  20. #5980
    Elemental Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,116
    Quote Originally Posted by razorpax View Post
    It might and it might not but personally I find a tech based class boring compared to a high fantasy class like dragonsworn (I mean actual mortals empowered by dragons like in the lore not bastard dragons with identity issues)
    Ye same here. High fantasy has always been my preference. I never saw the appeal of tech stuff in wow. Goblins, gnomes and now mechagnomes will always be weak in my eyes. Tech stuff breaks most of the time or fuel is gone. I rather not care about those things.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pebrocks The Warlock View Post
    I seriously can't tell what people here are even arguing about anymore.
    Nothing realy.. like always who has the biggest D.

    Ofc they will not admit when wrong or what ever.

Posting Permissions

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