Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
17
18
... LastLast
  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    Hang on, didn't mechagon show us that time travel is possible via technology? What if, the dragon isles are lost to time similar to Pandaria's timeless Isle? And that's why we cant find them.

    HOLY SHIT

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    - - - Updated - - -

    Nvm that was chromie as a visitor....
    DRAGONSSSSSS
    dragons take flight through the ice and snow

    High in the sky where the cold wind blows

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Which is what I did, play devil's advocate above and applied it to Shadowlands.

    We run into the same reason why we don't have playable Tinkers today. The reasons we got were that they didn't find a class that fit an expansion the way Demon Hunters fit Legion. If that is not a concern for Tinkers as a class, then I see no reason why Blizzard would apply that as their reason to omit a class in Shadowlands.

    Tinkers didn't have to be central to the plot of Shadowlands either, they could just be there for the sake of being there. But we know that Blizzard has chosen not to go that route and explained a specific reason not to, which is why I'm applying that same logic here. Otherwise I see no reason why Tinkers couldn't also be added to Shadowlands.
    The thing is that we don’t really know what we don’t have playable Tinkers today. Or Necromancers, or Dark Rangers, or Bards, or what have you. We have random quotes from Blizzard here and there, but the reality is that we don’t really have anywhere near the full picture.

    It’s entirely possible that we just never were going to get a new class in HShadowlands. Like, regardless of theme or story. It’s also possible that they had thought about adding half a dozen different classes and couldn’t decide on one. Or they simply decided to shift resources.

    i think that ultimately there is an innate danger I taking small snippets of what a Blizzard dev says and then holding is an absolute. Because ultimately we have people making rather absolutist statements based on very flimsy evidence and a lot of conjecture, and I find it a ver slippery slope when it comes to these discussions.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    The thing is that we don’t really know what we don’t have playable Tinkers today. Or Necromancers, or Dark Rangers, or Bards, or what have you. We have random quotes from Blizzard here and there, but the reality is that we don’t really have anywhere near the full picture.

    It’s entirely possible that we just never were going to get a new class in HShadowlands. Like, regardless of theme or story. It’s also possible that they had thought about adding half a dozen different classes and couldn’t decide on one. Or they simply decided to shift resources.
    Except the quote is not random?

    It's directed at why no class was chosen for Shadowlands. They could have simply not answered at all, exactly as TBC never had a new class with zero explanation. They could have simply said they wanted to devote resources to building the world of Shadowlands, and cut out the part about choosing a class that fit the story and setting as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion.

    This would be one of the few times they publicly stated any reasoning they had for not choosing a class in any expansion. And considering how transparent they were about Character Customization in the same article and what they chose to focus on in Shadowlands, I don't see them trying to hide some other ulterior motives. Even if it were a lack of resources or being unable to pick the right class out of a half-dozen options, it still remains true that the Tinker (and other classes) was not picked for Shadowlands for the very reason of not fitting as well as Demon Hunters did as in Legion.

    So would Tinker theoretically be worthy of a unanimous decision in moving into Dragon Isles? Is that what we're considering here? If so then it's really up to the devs to decide that. I personally \think their message implies they would prefer to decide on a Tinker class introduced in a Tech-themed expansion more than they would want to introduce in a Dragon-themed one. And the store mounts/pets that Varx has mentioned seem to point in that direction. The only thing I'm left to guess at is why they've decided to connect Mech Dragons to Timeless/Infinite Dragons for this particular pet.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-11 at 11:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Except the quote is not random?

    It's directed at why no class was chosen for Shadowlands. If it were a case of no class ever being planned for Shadowlands, they could have simply not answered at all. They could have just kept the latter part, saying they wanted to devote resources to building the world of Shadowlands, and cut out the former part about a class that fit as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion.

    This would be one of the few times they publicly stated any reasoning they had for not choosing a class in Shadowlands. And considering how transparent they were about Character Customization in the same article and what they chose to focus on in Shadowlands, I don't see them trying to hide some other ulterior motives when addressing reasons why they didn't pick a Class for Shadowlands. Even if it were a lack of resources or being unable to pick the right class out of a half-dozen options, it still remains true that the Tinker (and other classes) was not picked for Shadowlands for the very reason of not fitting as well as Demon Hunters did as in Legion, which could have easily been a unanimous decision at the time.

    So would Tinker theoretically be worthy of a unanimous decision in moving into Dragon Isles? Is that what we're considering here? If so then it's really up to the devs to decide that. I personally I think their message implies they would prefer to decide on a Tinker class introduced in a Tech-themed expansion more than they would want to introduce in a Dragon-themed one. And the store mounts/pets that Varx has mentioned seem to point in that direction. The only thing I'm left to guess at is why they've decided to connect Mech Dragons to Timeless/Infinite Dragons for this particular pet.
    Lack of new baby dragons??
    I can’t remember the steam scale description or if it mentions the reason it was made

    Maybe brought in by the infinite from the timeline that Mechagon won

  5. #305
    Stop
    the
    tinker
    posts

  6. #306
    The Lightbringer Wangming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Not Azeroth
    Posts
    3,210
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    The thing is that we don’t really know what we don’t have playable Tinkers today.
    You are right, we are don't. But it does seem that class fantasy and expansion fantasy is important. We got Death Knight in Wrath of the Lich King. Monks in Mists of Pandaria and Demon Hunter in Legion. They perfectly fit the expansion fantasy.

    Question is, do they decide on specs first and class next, or vica versa.

    Meaning: Do they first say "We need a plate wearing melee DPS" and then try to figure out what class could have that spec and fit a Scourge expansion? Or do they first say "We want Death Knights" and then look at potential specs?

    Let us put aside lore and engineering for a minute. Let us look at which armor type is under represented. Which spec type has the smallest members? When we have the answers we should look at if Tinker can fit those. I know some Tinker fans can use mental gymnastics to make them fit anything, but realistically speaking. Like if it turns out we need leather wearing healers, I doubt a mecha pilot is the way to go. No offense. That would be a better fit for a Bard.

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Wangming View Post
    Let us put aside lore and engineering for a minute. Let us look at which armor type is under represented. Which spec type has the smallest members? When we have the answers we should look at if Tinker can fit those. I know some Tinker fans can use mental gymnastics to make them fit anything, but realistically speaking. Like if it turns out we need leather wearing healers, I doubt a mecha pilot is the way to go. No offense. That would be a better fit for a Bard.
    I think it's difficult to address that, because Blizzard hasn't introduced classes based on filling any certain roles. DK may be an exception, since we know there was a lack of Tanks at the time. But after that, we continued to get Tank classes with the Monk and Demon Hunter. We also know Necromancer was on the shortlist alongside the Runemaster and DK, and it's definitely not a Tank class.

    And we can also consider the Demon Hunter, which is a non-sensible move. We clearly were missing a 3rd Mail user, and here they added another 'Monk-like' Melee, Dual Wielding, Agility-based Tank/DPS class who wears Leather. And it's clear that the Demon Hunter wasn't being picked because of its two Specs.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-11 at 11:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by Wangming View Post
    You are right, we are don't. But it does seem that class fantasy and expansion fantasy is important. We got Death Knight in Wrath of the Lich King. Monks in Mists of Pandaria and Demon Hunter in Legion. They perfectly fit the expansion fantasy.

    Question is, do they decide on specs first and class next, or vica versa.

    Meaning: Do they first say "We need a plate wearing melee DPS" and then try to figure out what class could have that spec and fit a Scourge expansion? Or do they first say "We want Death Knights" and then look at potential specs?

    Let us put aside lore and engineering for a minute. Let us look at which armor type is under represented. Which spec type has the smallest members? When we have the answers we should look at if Tinker can fit those. I know some Tinker fans can use mental gymnastics to make them fit anything, but realistically speaking. Like if it turns out we need leather wearing healers, I doubt a mecha pilot is the way to go. No offense. That would be a better fit for a Bard.
    I don’t think they worry about armor
    We still only have two mail classes and one gun user



    The steam scale mount is described as an invention by a mad gnome that dreamed of riding a dragon and powered it by using a demon soul

    So it’s dragon Christine

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I think it's difficult to address that, because Blizzard hasn't introduced classes based on filling any certain roles. DK may be an exception, since we know there was a lack of Tanks at the time, and the DK was in an ideal position to be a '3 Tanks in one' class, so it definitely helped at the time. But after that, we continued to get Tank classes with the Monk and Demon Hunter, and we still lack a second class that can use Phys Ranged weaponry leaving it exclusively to the Hunters. Every other class shares their weapons with something else (Warglaives being the exception)

    I mean if the argument is that we need a Mail-wearing Phys Ranged DPS, that also begs the question why no Dark Ranger in Shadowlands.
    I think because the dark ranger trainer and leader are both dead or gone

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by zantheus1993 View Post
    I don’t think they worry about armor
    We still only have two mail classes and one gun user



    The steam scale mount is described as an invention by a mad gnome that dreamed of riding a dragon and powered it by using a demon soul

    So it’s dragon Christine

    - - - Updated - - -



    I think because the dark ranger trainer and leader are both dead or gone
    What if said gnome had a vision of the FffUuUuutture.

    Man finding that mech baby dragon pet from the anni vendor makes me feel like super pyromancer.

  10. #310
    The Lightbringer Wangming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Not Azeroth
    Posts
    3,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post

    I mean if the argument is that we need a Mail-wearing Phys Ranged DPS, that also begs the question why no Dark Ranger in Shadowlands.
    See this is an interesting question. In Final Fantasy XIV Physical ranged DPS is vastly underrepresented. So people were surprised that we are getting another melee DPS in Endwalker, despite that being the largest group. So when we asked why, they told us that from the perspective of encounter design and party composition it really doesn't matter if your ranged damage is magic or physical. It's just ranged damage. So yeah we only have Hunter for Phys ranged, but Mage and Warlock only have dps specs, shaman, druid and paladin also bring a dps caster each so now even if you categorize survival as melee you suddenly have eleven ranged damage dealers. Almost as many as tanks and healers combined.

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    What if said gnome had a vision of the FffUuUuutture.

    Man finding that mech baby dragon pet from the anni vendor makes me feel like super pyromancer.
    It isn’t described as a vision
    Just a dream
    If it was a vision he wouldn’t have died

  12. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by zantheus1993 View Post
    It isn’t described as a vision
    Just a dream
    If it was a vision he wouldn’t have died
    He died turning the dragon on lol.

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by zantheus1993 View Post

    I think because the dark ranger trainer and leader are both dead or gone
    Sylvanas will clearly have a "surrender" at the end of Shadowlands. 99% sure that she will be the one to give the "final blow" in the last raid-boss: The Jailer.
    So... yes, we will have a Dark Ranger to train playable Dark Rangers.
    well... with 100% certainty the only thing I know is: If the next class isn't a ranged-class... the entire Blizzard team should resign.

  14. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by zantheus1993 View Post
    I think because the dark ranger trainer and leader are both dead or gone
    Never stopped Death Knights, Monks or Demon Hunters.

    Every Hero class was set in a time period in the past when they were trainable. Or we could have a situation where we 'magically' have new trainers appear around the world like Monk trainers, introduce them as blank slates like Exiles Reach or just have new trainers like Bolvar's new DKs. We already have the precedent set with end of BFA having Night Elf and Blood Elf Dark Rangers back in our factions and away from Sylvanas.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-11 at 11:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Except the quote is not random?

    It's directed at why no class was chosen for Shadowlands. If it were a case of no class ever being planned for Shadowlands, they could have simply not answered at all. They could have just kept the latter part, saying they wanted to devote resources to building the world of Shadowlands, and cut out the former part about a class that fit as well as Demon Hunters did for Legion.

    This would be one of the few times they publicly stated any reasoning they had for not choosing a class in Shadowlands. And considering how transparent they were about Character Customization in the same article and what they chose to focus on in Shadowlands, I don't see them trying to hide some other ulterior motives when addressing reasons why they didn't pick a Class for Shadowlands. Even if it were a lack of resources or being unable to pick the right class out of a half-dozen options, it still remains true that the Tinker (and other classes) was not picked for Shadowlands for the very reason of not fitting as well as Demon Hunters did as in Legion, which could have easily been a unanimous decision at the time.

    So would Tinker theoretically be worthy of a unanimous decision in moving into Dragon Isles? Is that what we're considering here? If so then it's really up to the devs to decide that. I personally I think their message implies they would prefer to decide on a Tinker class introduced in a Tech-themed expansion more than they would want to introduce in a Dragon-themed one. And the store mounts/pets that Varx has mentioned seem to point in that direction. The only thing I'm left to guess at is why they've decided to connect Mech Dragons to Timeless/Infinite Dragons for this particular pet.
    But it is, because it's a cherry picked quote taken in isolation and then having a ton of value placed on it. It gets used because we don't tend to get a lot of info when it comes to design choices, so extra emphasis is added to what we do get, which is dangerous when it comes to these discussions. Grabbing onto a single quote and attributing to it the entire weight of why they would or would not add a new class is very likely a massive oversimplification of the issue.

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by Wangming View Post
    See this is an interesting question. In Final Fantasy XIV Physical ranged DPS is vastly underrepresented. So people were surprised that we are getting another melee DPS in Endwalker, despite that being the largest group. So when we asked why, they told us that from the perspective of encounter design and party composition it really doesn't matter if your ranged damage is magic or physical. It's just ranged damage. So yeah we only have Hunter for Phys ranged, but Mage and Warlock only have dps specs, shaman, druid and paladin also bring a dps caster each so now even if you categorize survival as melee you suddenly have eleven ranged damage dealers. Almost as many as tanks and healers combined.
    To be honest I don't think this really applies to Tinker or Dragonsworn since both concepts are flexible enough to fit any role.

    Tinkers could be in Mech suits that tank, use phys ranged Artillery, use melee Mech DPS, or use technology to heal.

    Dragonsworn can be Dragon Knights for melee and tanking, or be Spellcasters for Ranged DPS and healing.

    It's really up to Blizzard to fill in the blanks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    But it is, because it's a cherry picked quote taken in isolation and then having a ton of value placed on it. It gets used because we don't tend to get a lot of info when it comes to design choices, so extra emphasis is added to what we do get, which is dangerous when it comes to these discussions. Grabbing onto a single quote and attributing to it the entire weight of why they would or would not add a new class is very likely a massive oversimplification of the issue.
    Yet it reinforces the very idea of why we aren't getting Tinkers haphazardly placed in expansions that don't fit it. Otherwise Tinker would have been the much more obvious choice as a 12th class than Demon Hunter.

    Consider the wider variety of gameplay options that would have been available, the much greater innovative flexibility, not having issues with conflicting with Warlock specs, being able to flesh out 3 entire specs and more. Tinkers could fit into any expansion theme by your own example. So why Demon Hunters instead of Tinkers?

    What the devs said actually makes sense in consideration of a Class fitting the Story and Setting they're choosing for any given expansion. Otherwise really, the Tinker has no excuse for not already being playable. Period.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  17. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Wangming View Post
    You are right, we are don't. But it does seem that class fantasy and expansion fantasy is important. We got Death Knight in Wrath of the Lich King. Monks in Mists of Pandaria and Demon Hunter in Legion. They perfectly fit the expansion fantasy.
    Well, in two of the three cases, the class added actually propelled the story forward. In both cases, they were hyper specific hero classes. The Monk, while having a a central Pandaran theme, didn't really do that. It also just kind of showed up. I would argue that it was used more as a means of filling a common character archetype, rather than filling a narrative ga like the other two, more specific classes were.

    Question is, do they decide on specs first and class next, or vica versa.

    Meaning: Do they first say "We need a plate wearing melee DPS" and then try to figure out what class could have that spec and fit a Scourge expansion? Or do they first say "We want Death Knights" and then look at potential specs?
    It's impossible to say for sure, though evidence in my opinion points to spec and then class, as the classes added thus far were inspired by WC3 units that are largely specs themselves (Brewmaster and Havoc). Of course, even if this is the case, nothing says that classes designed in the future would follow the same design methodology.

    Personally I would hope that they don't look at class addition and design as a mish mash of "we need more mail users" or "we don't have enough melee healers" or what have you. That feels like a sterile way to add new content. I would rather they boil it down from having really cool ideas that are excited about coupled with gameplay that they think will be fun.

    Let us put aside lore and engineering for a minute. Let us look at which armor type is under represented. Which spec type has the smallest members? When we have the answers we should look at if Tinker can fit those. I know some Tinker fans can use mental gymnastics to make them fit anything, but realistically speaking. Like if it turns out we need leather wearing healers, I doubt a mecha pilot is the way to go. No offense. That would be a better fit for a Bard.
    I don't think we *need* anything though. Class addition is an exercise in adding something new and exciting, not shoring up a gap. If the game is functional as it is, then the notion of needing anything (where it be an armor type or a role) is largely moot.

    My take is that we, as players, want to fill archetypes with our characters. Given it's largely a fantasy game with western aesthetic, it makes sense that the bulk of those archetypes fall within those parameters. Of course they don't all need to. Demon Hunters aren't really a common fantasy archetype and are very much a Warcraft thing. For my money, when adding a new class, I look at what archetypes can't a player play with existing classes in a fun and meaningful way that satisfies the archetype without requiring a ton of sacrifice.

    I'd say a tech class like a Tinker works there.
    So does a Bard as it's a very classic archetype.
    When it comes to Warcraft based archetypes, things like a Voodoo Practitioner, Apothecary, or Blademaster all are archetypes that could be added.

    Now, not all of these need be a class of their own. There are other ways to add playable options. But as a player, what I'd like to see is the ability for me to play as the character that I want to, more than having a set number of classes with certain mechanical attributes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yet it reinforces the very idea of why we aren't getting Tinkers haphazardly placed in expansions that don't fit it. Otherwise Tinker would have been the much more obvious choice as a 12th class than Demon Hunter.

    Consider the wider variety of gameplay options that would have been available, the much greater innovative flexibility, not having issues with conflicting with Warlock specs, being able to flesh out 3 entire specs and more. Tinkers could fit into any expansion theme by your own example. So why Demon Hunters instead of Tinkers?

    What the devs said actually makes sense in consideration of a Class fitting the Story and Setting they're choosing for any given expansion. Otherwise really, the Tinker has no excuse for not already being playable. Period.
    That feels like very circular logic though. The notion that the Tinker is intrinsically "better" as a class and because it wasn't added it means that it couldn't have been added because it didn't fit the theme.

    The answer could be exactly that. They wanted a class to fit the expansion. Absolutely. But...

    - It could have been that they didn't have a grip on what they wanted to do with the Tinker
    - It could have been that they asked around the office and people were just more into Demon Hunters
    - It could have been that one dude just had a massive hardon for blind guys with wings and comically oversized weapons
    - It could be that for Legion they wanted a class that propelled the narrative, whereas this isn't a concern for an upcoming expansion
    - It could have been a time limit issue where they went the simple and easy route, rather than the more complex one

    I'm not a fan of Demon Hunters. Personally, I find it the dullest, laziest option they could have gone with. But there are a ton of reasons that they migh have settled on them even if something like Tinkers would have been "superior". Honestly, in all likelihood it was more than just one single thing. It could have been a combination of all the above and several other things on top of those.

  18. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    He died turning the dragon on lol.
    yep
    hence why it wasnt some psychic vision given to a random gnome lol

    though the creation of mecha dragons goes back as far as MoP maybe further

    you take the pet and the mount and all the stuff in BfA together and BOOM DARGON ISLES BABY!!

  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    That feels like very circular logic though. The notion that the Tinker is intrinsically "better" as a class and because it wasn't added it means that it couldn't have been added because it didn't fit the theme.

    The answer could be exactly that. They wanted a class to fit the expansion. Absolutely. But...

    - It could have been that they didn't have a grip on what they wanted to do with the Tinker
    - It could have been that they asked around the office and people were just more into Demon Hunters
    - It could have been that one dude just had a massive hardon for blind guys with wings and comically oversized weapons
    - It could be that for Legion they wanted a class that propelled the narrative, whereas this isn't a concern for an upcoming expansion
    - It could have been a time limit issue where they went the simple and easy route, rather than the more complex one
    Sure, but I didn't dismiss any of those possibilities.

    I'm questioning the integrity of suggesting a Tinker belonging in a Dragon-themed expansion. Is there a particular reason we should assume Blizzard wants to do this? I mean it's beyond a mere pattern if the devs are confirming Story and Setting as a reason for not having a new class for Shadowlands.

    I'm completely aware that in the past, they considered a non-thematic Runemaster as a possible class in Wrath. However it's a lot more different now, where we're dipping into non-Warcraft 3 material. They have room to invent any new location, and the possibility of an expansion based on Dragon Isles is no more substantial than an expansion based on Undermine or any other Tech-based location. Even K'aresh would make sense since it's entirely rooted in space, and we had plenty of Gnome/Goblin tech associated to this since Netherstorm in TBC. I see no reason why the Tinker would be integrated into any other (generally) non-tech-centric expansion theme.

    The biggest hurdle I've had with considering a Tinker as a top pick over Dragonsworn is due to a lack of hints towards a Tech-themed expansion. I think the 9.1 anniversary pet could be a potential connection to that.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-12 at 03:16 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  20. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Sure, but I didn't dismiss any of those possibilities.

    I'm questioning the integrity of suggesting a Tinker belonging in a Dragon-themed expansion. Is there a particular reason we should assume Blizzard wants to do this? I mean it's beyond a mere pattern if the devs are confirming Story and Setting as a reason for not having a new class for Shadowlands.

    I'm completely aware that in the past, they considered a non-thematic Runemaster as a possible class in Wrath. However it's a lot more different now, where we're dipping into non-Warcraft 3 material. They have room to invent any new location, and the possibility of an expansion based on Dragon Isles is no more substantial than an expansion based on Undermine or any other Tech-based location. Even K'aresh would make sense since it's entirely rooted in space, and we had plenty of Gnome/Goblin tech associated to this since Netherstorm in TBC. I see no reason why the Tinker would be integrated into any other (generally) non-tech-centric expansion theme.

    The biggest hurdle I've had with considering a Tinker as a top pick over Dragonsworn is due to a lack of hints towards a Tech-themed expansion. I think the 9.1 anniversary pet could be a potential connection to that.
    Because there's no real need to couple the theme and story of a new class added to the game with the theme and story of the expansion that the class debuts in. In fact, if we look at the example set by the last class added, we can see why this might not be a great idea. It can shoehorn the development into a very limited set of options and result in less than spectacular results. Just because it was done in the past, really doesn't mean that Blizzard should be constrained by that notion and not, in fact, learn from it.

    It actually gives greater narrative freedom to take a broader class concept and introduce it as an expansion feature, without it being tied to the overall narrative of the expansion. It lets the team actually create something new and innovative without it having to conform to the theme of the expansion.

    Tinkers already exist. They're established in lore. We don't need a massive story to introduce them. We don't need a planet wide catastrophe to bring them out of hiding. We don't need to set them up as a playable class. They weren't playable before, they are now. It's an addition. A feature that would be added to the back of the box, if boxes were still a thing. But whether it's the Dragon Isles or any other expansion, they don't need super special narrative inclusion. Just because the theme of the expansion is Dragon, it doesn't mean that the new class has to be Dragon focused. The expansion is going to be littered with Dragony goodness. Something a little different that still helps fill both character archetypes and a Warcraft class void will work just fine.

Posting Permissions

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