[Speculation] Tinker Class for 10.0 Dragon Isles

[jellmoo]

And I haven't said anything to counter or dismiss people guessing.

I've said that based on logical analysis of the discussion material, we have nothing to indicate a wild theory such as Tinkers being in Dragon Isles as something substantial and worth discussing, especially after they have given specific reasonings not to have done something similar in Shadowlands

It is nothing more than wild speculation.

Literally everything is wild speculation because we simply do not know. We don't know what the next expansion is, we don't know what classes they are considering adding, we don't know if they are considering any new class, and we don't know what criteria they use to come to these decisions. Trying to say that one piece of speculation is more valid than another is just trying to lead the conversation into a desired area by placing more validity to perceived 'evidence'.

We might as well be talking about Sea Witch as a class in Dragon Isles, because why not right?

Why not though? No really, why not? The assumption that class A or B is more likely based on assumptions and perceived evidence patterns is folly. People in this thread (and others) say things like "The most likely new classes added are Tinker and Bard" and that's not a factual statement. It's supposition. All it does is try and force the conversation. So why not a Sea Witch? Or a Sea Knight? Or a Sea Monk? Or a SeeSaw?

Well nothing stops me from saying Blizzard has made any indication they'd want to do that. Honestly I'm not sure what you think is wrong with the statements I present, since I'm not saying its impossible, just that it's an idea that is based on pure speculation.

And frankly even the OP is completely in agreement that its pure speculation, and we're both fine with that.

There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with speculation. Speculation is exactly what these things should be about. The issue I have is how this speculation gets presented. Speculation is not evidence, nor is it concrete. It is not absolute. It is guesswork based on flimsy evidence, gut instinct and personal opinion. Framing speculation as something more concrete is where I think these threads always get derailed and we go down the rabbit hole of opinion being presented as fact.

When discussing something like past new classes, we had a lot less to go on to figure out any general guidelines of what they consider for a class and what they wouldn't consider. We know a lot more today than ever, which helps figure out what Blizzard may be intending and what they may mot intend to do. It's the difference between just wildly speculating, and having something substantial to actually talk about. They could make Blademasters for all we know, but we have to look at the class beyond just being what we want to see, and figure if Blizzard is even interested in making a full new class out of it. And based on a lack of indication towards revisiting Burning Blade in the story, the lack of relevance in the future potential of the story, the lack of general demand etc, I think it would not be favourable for Blizzard to pursue. I didn't say it's never going to happen, only that any discussion on the matter is going to be 100% speculation.

You see, that strikes me as hubris. I don't think we know a lot more about the process than before. I think we assume that we know quite a bit that we simply do not. That we look at patterns, use those to come to conclusions, and then present those conclusions as 'facts' and that stifles the conversation.

I mean, if we take the Blademaster example you list and apply it to Tinkers. There's no real connection to Tinkers in game right now. No real indication that any Tinker characters are about to get spotlight. It's one of the most divisive possible classes to add, so it could alienate swaths of the playerbase. We could reach the conclusion that it would not be favourable for Blizzard to pursue. I don't really believe that, but if the argument gets framed that way it certainly doesn't look great for the class as a possibility.

My point is that if everything is speculation, we need to be careful how we frame our arguments, because time, and time, and time again these threads devolve into nothing but people presenting speculation as considerably more than what it is.

[Triceron]

My point is that if everything is speculation, we need to be careful how we frame our arguments, because time, and time, and time again these threads devolve into nothing but people presenting speculation as considerably more than what it is.

Which is exactly why I was making a point against the OP who was reaching further than speculation by inferring that Tinkers have a connection to Dragon Isles because of the latest hints from the pet, and I was clarifying that it was still only speculation.

I think you may be taking my argument out of context considering you jumped in to argue a specific point, not realizing that I was simply keeping the topic framed as speculation.

And there ARE certain classes that would have a higher plausability than others which we can gauge merits on that aren't purely guessing. Same as referring to any future expansions. Dragon Isles is also speculation, but it's an informed location. Shadowlands was speculation, but it was an informed location due to Sylvanas' connections in the lore. It's not hubris, it's analyzing factual evidence. And if there is more evidence of other classes, then we can take that into a count.

As I said, what about Blademasters do we actually know that suggests them to be playable? Right now, not much. We knew of one Lightforged Blademaster who died, some Non playable Race variants of Blademasters in WoD and TBC (Saberon and Ankoan) and the Burning Blade from WoD and their remnants in the Horde. None which are really connected to any immediate future potential content, which means it is wild speculation.

Tinkers do have a better connection. We had NPCs of possible Tinkers in BFA island expeditions. Gazlowe is now Goblin racial leader instead of Gallywix. The Mechagnomes were brought in as a new race. And more recently, the mech pets that potentially hint at some future Tech related content, because Blizzard has made these store mount and pet connections before. It's still speculation but it isn't a wild guess. The plausability is higher due to evidence to suggest possibility. And if we're talking about guessing the next expansion, would you consider discussing Alternate Universe Argus to be exactly on the same level of speculation as Dragon Isles? Because I would not. Not all speculation is wildly guessing.

And I want to be clear than even though these concepts have more merit behind future possibilities, I'm just talking about higher chances based on what we can observably guess. If Blizzard wants to do AU Argus, they can, but it would be in a way that we can't really guess at the oitcome because it's never a consideration. Just like trying to guess WoD; all we could guess are the possible locations hinted but not been to yet like South Seas or Emerald Dream or Zandalar. Those locations would have been considered rooted in lore as opposed to someone making a wild guess at AU Draenor and being right about it. Because I'm not even talking about anyone being right, I talking about what is most plausible based on what we know.

[jellmoo]

Which is exactly why I was making a point against the OP who was reaching further than speculation by inferring that Tinkers have a connection to Dragon Isles because of the latest hints from the pet, and I was clarifying that it was still only speculation.

I think you may be taking my argument out of context considering you jumped in to argue a specific point, not realizing that I was simply keeping the topic framed as speculation.

To be absolutely fair, I have veered off of the initial point to address much more general postings within these threads that I honestly don't believe you are guilty of. I veered into posting speculation and guesswork as fact, which is what just about every class thread runs into at one point or another. That's my bad for meandering a little too far.

For the purposes of our discussion, that notion relates to the decoupling of class from expansion. Because, and maybe this was just me not quite understanding, I feel that you were presenting your point of the class needing to match the expansion as something closer to a hard fact than your opinion. If I missed the mark there, I apologize, but that was what I was getting from your arguments.

And there ARE certain classes that would have a higher plausability than others which we can gauge merits on that aren't purely guessing. Same as referring to any future expansions. Dragon Isles is also speculation, but it's an informed location. Shadowlands was speculation, but it was an informed location due to Sylvanas' connections in the lore. It's not hubris, it's analyzing factual evidence. And if there is more evidence of other classes, then we can take that into a count.

No, there are classes that you surmise are more likely or have a higher plausibility based on criteria you have established. The problem is, that criteria isn't the whole story, nor is it going to be the deciding factor when a large, multidepartmental team at Blizzard starts to hammer this out. The issue here is putting so much weight on the 'evidence' that it shifts the discussion into a direction that precludes others. If you've reached the conclusion that the most likely new class is either Bards or Tinkers, therefore other options aren't worth addressing (just an example) then the conversation has shifted purely due to fragments of info picked up and some educated guesswork.

As I said, what about Blademasters do we actually know that suggests them to be playable? Right now, not much. We knew of one Lightforged Blademaster who died, some Non playable Race variants of Blademasters in WoD and TBC (Saberon and Ankoan) and the Burning Blade from WoD and their remnants in the Horde. None which are really connected to any immediate future potential content, which means it is wild speculation.

And we knew next to nothing about Monks or Pandaria, had little inclination that either was on the horizon, and yet we had MoP pop up. Why do we need to know a ton about something before it's playable? Why do we need something to be super established beforehand? Why can almost every race in the game be a Monk? Does it really matter? Do Blademasters need to be different?

Tinkers do have a better connection. We had NPCs of possible Tinkers in BFA island expeditions. Gazlowe is now Goblin racial leader instead of Gallywix. The Mechagnomes were brought in as a new race. And more recently, the mech pets that potentially hint at some future Tech related content, because Blizzard has made these store mount and pet connections before. It's still speculation but it isn't a wild guess. The plausability is higher due to evidence to suggest possibility. And if we're talking about guessing the next expansion, would you consider discussing Alternate Universe Argus to be exactly on the same level of speculation as Dragon Isles? Because I would not. Not all speculation is wildly guessing.

Right now, do they really? Neither Gazlowe, Mekkatorque, Mechagnomes or Tinkers at all have played any meaningful role in Shadowlands. Is something that happened an expansion past really an indication of what is going to happen in the next expansion? Were Monks heavily teased in WotLK? Were Demon Hunters heavily teased in Cata? Considering all the troll related voodoo and Loa in BfA, does that mean that a Shadow Hunter class is imminent next expansion?

You're using the word evidence to describe the tracing of breadcrumbs and perceived hints to reach a conclusion about plausibility. Again, speculation is absolutely fine and dandy, but I balk at the notion that small hints about store pets, quest text, single Blizzard quotes or prevalence of an NPC in the game is anything more than anecdotal.

[Triceron]

For the purposes of our discussion, that notion relates to the decoupling of class from expansion. Because, and maybe this was just me not quite understanding, I feel that you were presenting your point of the class needing to match the expansion as something closer to a hard fact than your opinion. If I missed the mark there, I apologize, but that was what I was getting from your arguments.

It's definitely not a hard fact, but something that would suggest that Tinkers in Dragon Isles would be little more than speculation, as opposed to pointing at Steam Dragon mounts as a significant indicator. As I had explained earlier, dragons are just popular mounts in general, and not a particular coupling of a certain theme to dragons specifically to tie Tinkers to Dragon Isles. That's mostly my point, and I was sourcing devs mentioning Story and Setting as a means to reinforce my point, not as a means to dismiss Tinkers in Dragon Isles entirely.

And we knew next to nothing about Monks or Pandaria, had little inclination that either was on the horizon, and yet we had MoP pop up. Why do we need to know a ton about something before it's playable? Why do we need something to be super established beforehand? Why can almost every race in the game be a Monk? Does it really matter? Do Blademasters need to be different?

We don't need to know anything. But if someone suggests a theory, we can still discuss the merits no? Thats all I've done, and I never dismissed anything.

If someone wants to present a suggestion, I'm all ears. But if it reaches to far to imply that it's definitely going to happen because of X and Y reasons that are merely correlations and guesses then I can make an argument that it may not have enough information to be considered it any more than speculation. THe burden of proof is on the person making the suggestion to present an argument that is persuasive and compelling to consider further discussion.

I'm questioning the integrity of the suggestion itself. I'm the one asking for any proof that helps support the idea that it would or could happen, so that we have *something* to discuss. Otherwise, what else is there to discuss? That Tinkers are obviously going to be in Dragon Isles and everyone should accept this reasoning because the OP suggests it and no one has proof that Blizzard can't make it happen?

And to be fair, I did consider some of the proof, and I do believe that it could be possibly tying future themes or content that Blizzard may want to explore. It's not sure-fire, but the store mounts have usually had some subtle connections to future content, like the Heart of the Aspects being an asian-themed dragon then we got MoP, or we had a Sylverian Dreamer and we had the Shadowlands with similar creatures in play.

Right now, do they really? Neither Gazlowe, Mekkatorque, Mechagnomes or Tinkers at all have played any meaningful role in Shadowlands. Is something that happened an expansion past really an indication of what is going to happen in the next expansion? Were Monks heavily teased in WotLK? Were Demon Hunters heavily teased in Cata? Considering all the troll related voodoo and Loa in BfA, does that mean that a Shadow Hunter class is imminent next expansion?

We are obviously returning to Azeroth after Shadowlands, before Blizzard establishes where we go next. There are plenty of loose ends that would connect to Tinkers, such as Gallywix's whereabouts and his connection to Undermine. Those are open plot points we know left hanging.

What do we have to suggest Blademasters? Fairly little considering even the one Lightforged Blademaster dies in Legion. If they come up with something completely new then we can say they came up with something that wasn't predictable and beyond anyone's expectations. Because even if someone were right about Blademasters, it wouldn't be in the way that we could guess how Blizzard would have implemented it. It doesn't exactly fit as a theory based on what we know.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Imagine a xpac where I'll have to listen to the voice of the M.O.T.H.E.R. the same amount of times I had to listen to Bwonsamdi on BFA.
God, save me from this.

What's wrong with Bwonsamdi?

I kinda want a Witch Doctor type class instead of a Shadow Hunter

[Fantazma]

What's wrong with Bwonsamdi?

I kinda want a Witch Doctor type class instead of a Shadow Hunter

I do not know. I always wanted to ask Blizzard why a Dark Ranger (Sylvanas) appeared in the last 3 cinematics (Legion, BFA, SL) and it hasn't happened once with Bwonsamdi. I would also like to ask why a Dark Ranger (Sylvanas) is the main character in the story for at least 2 expansions and why this has not happened to Bwonsamdi. And finally I would like to ask why a Dark Ranger (Sylvanas) with skills so different from any Hunter is not yet playable in the game... and why I should have more hope to see a playable "Bwonsamdi" and revive Zuldazar AGAIN. .. than having something totally different (and really cool) as a Dark Ranger.
Yes, my friend, there are many questions that we may never have the answer to.

[Triceron]

Yes, my friend, there are many questions that we may never have the answer to.

We know the answer to that.

Danuser and Golden.