Page 6 of 38 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
16
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Bwonsamdi the Dead View Post
    I want a Bwonsamdi Priest skin for my Zandalari. I'm not sure how a Cultist skin would work for other races
    I think part of the point would be that the Bwomsamdi priest skin would only be available to trolls (I wouldn't limit it to zandalari since Darkspear can be his followers too)

    For other races, it would just be flavors for whatever their unique specializations are. IE: Undead and void elf priests not using holy light, Sunwalker themes for Tauren priests (Do their priests get their powers from the sun same as their pallies do? Or do they actually worship the light lorewise?) among others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Minikin View Post
    "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never....BURN IT"

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    Nah, but we can absolutely reskin existing classes to allow for the fulfillment of other class fantasies. The classes are just the building blocks. At the end of the day, each class is remarkably similar. Reskin them and their abilities and you can change an awful lot with what they do.
    We can reuse old features and market them as new. Wouldn't make it any good, though. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
    Some classes are remarkably similar, not all. And that is because they have to follow certain rules (so, shockingly, a new class would fill roles that previous ones did). That's hardly a reason to throw a new garment at an existing class and call it a new one.
    No, you can't change what they do. You can only change how it looks with class skins.

    Well... Yes? That's what class design is. Thinking up cool things a character can do. A tech based class using stealth isn't even remotely a stretch.
    In the realm of feasibility. There's no reason for Tinkers to perma-stealth while wearing a claw pack (cat form) as you suggested. You just throw in whatever you think is cool instead of what is suitable.

    Or in different specs. Just like in existing classes. Why is allowing for more character concepts to be playable a bad thing?
    Because you already have the Tank and the DPS aspects.

    The Tinker class doesn't currently exist. It isn't anything. It is whatever it is made to be. You're just making up rules in your head that have to be followed for the class to be viable. That's cool for your own personal concept, but it's no set of rules that everyone else needs to live by. A Tinker is whatever it is made to be. Until then, it no more needs any specific abilities than it needs to be a unique class. A Tinker need to be no more specific than a Mage or a Priest.
    Check up on Gazlowe and Mekkatorque to get an idea of what a Tinker is.

    Nah. You just have a weirdly specific idea of what a Tinker needs to be. No other class in the game has ever been created in such a specific way. Classes are created to fill an archetype. To allow for character concepts to be filled. They aren't 'it needs to have this set of 20+ specific abilities'. The Tinker is a dude that uses tech to solve problems, the same way that a Mage is a dude that uses arcane magic to solve problems. It's an archetype that has abilities that reflect said archetype.
    Monks would like to have a word with you

    Quote Originally Posted by Prozach View Post
    What exactly would a "Tinker" do? Make toys? That's all I can think of when I see this class suggestion.
    Damn... you're clueless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deferionus View Post
    Death knights are melee. Necromancers are ranged casters. There is obviously a huge difference in play style. Because it does not appeal to you does not mean there are not tons of other people who would love to play a traditional necromancer class from the Warcraft universe. It is one of the most established classes in the lore and clear characters to model after such as Kel'thuzard and Araj.

    Once again, using Necromancer as a "class skin" wastes the concept of a necromancer on something cheap. We want necromancers, not a reskin of warlock spells and pets.
    And how would it differ beside doing the same things a Death Knight does, just from range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    https://www.wowhead.com/spell=84424/invisibility-field

    Engineering already provides permanent stealth, as long as you're out of combat.

    So it's really not a lore or fantasy issue to assume Tinkers improve upon that technology to gain active Stealth for combat.
    While in Robo-form?

    And that is still highly unlikely, because stealth isn't usually part of the Tinker fantasy.

    By all means, if you're going to stick to any definitions, then you're talking about a Goblin or Gnomish (and Dwarven) Engineering Vendor or Trainer. I don't think you want to use that argument to define a Tinker, since nothing in WoW actually refers to Tinkers as a playable class on its own; it doesn't formally exist outside of a title used for NPCs.

    Even Gazlowe in the WC3 campaign was literally called out as an Engineer (Engineer Gazlowe) and not a Tinker. And if you were to regard Tinkers as canon, then they're literally just another term for Engineers in WoW, by means of Gazlowe.
    If you'd check out lore, you'd see the class is mostly associated with them, since they are the only technological races (other than the Dwarves, and of course the Mechagnomes).

    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    Which just leaves a druid>tinker class skin as the only real option, since they would have to "shapeshift" into the mech because mounted combat isn't a thing.
    Do you realize it doesn't require mounted combat?
    It would be like a Demon Hunter's Metamorphosis.
    I'm tempted to apply for a moderator position, just so i can go moderator on your asses.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    Do you realize it doesn't require mounted combat?
    It would be like a Demon Hunter's Metamorphosis.
    Which is the same thing as a druid shapeshift. I suppose they could make them a class skin for Demon Hunters, but then they'd only get two specs. Druid is a better fit imo.

  4. #104
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,156
    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    The tinker ship sailed when they scrapped vehicle combat in WotLK. Unless they follow through on mounted combat, tinkers as a full-fledged class will never be a thing. Without their mech suit they are just engineers. That being said, mounted combat would be amazing.
    Why would you use the cumbersome vehicle system from WotLK when you can simply use a modified version of the Druid shape-shifting mechanic?

    WC3 even backs this up, since the Tinker in WC3 entered mech mode the same way Druids entered Bear or Crow form.

    Which just leaves a druid>tinker class skin as the only real option, since they would have to "shapeshift" into the mech because mounted combat isn't a thing.
    Except it requires far more than just utilizing a mechanic. The themes are completely different from each other, and Goblins, Gnomes, and MGnomes can’t be Druids. You would need to make unique standard Druid forms for them AND create this Tinker class skin on top of that.

    Considering that it would be awkward to see a mech trap someone in vines or bite/scratch their targets, you’re going to have to create entirely new art assets for all four Druid specs.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Why would you use the cumbersome vehicle system from WotLK when you can simply use a modified version of the Druid shape-shifting mechanic?

    WC3 even backs this up, since the Tinker in WC3 entered mech mode the same way Druids entered Bear or Crow form.


    The themes are completely different from each other
    So you agree it would just be a reskinned shapeshift. Progress!

    And the fact the themes are "completely different" is exactly the point of class skins - if it was extremely similar, there would be no point at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by MoanaLisa View Post
    Sites have their own audiences with their own specialized opinion makers.

  6. #106
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,156
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    So you agree it would just be a reskinned shapeshift. Progress!
    Well no. I agree that it can use the mechanic, but it wouldn’t be a reskin. A reskin utilized the same skeleton of the previous model, it just has a new skin over it. A mech with a Goblin or Gnome pilot would be an entirely different skeleton, animation, and skin.

    Not to mention the fact that a mech should operate differently than an animal in multiple ways.

    And the fact the themes are "completely different" is exactly the point of class skins - if it was extremely similar, there would be no point at all.
    Well that’s not true. Take Dark Rangers and Hunters. Yeah there are different themes present, but you dont need to fundamentally change a Hunter to make it into a Dark Ranger. All you need is an undead elven form, and shadow effects added to some abilities. Since Hunters already have arrow based abilities and can tame undead beasts, this is a very simple class skin to do.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    Which is the same thing as a druid shapeshift. I suppose they could make them a class skin for Demon Hunters, but then they'd only get two specs. Druid is a better fit imo.
    *facepalm*

    That was just an example.

    You see how you try to force the concept into every available class out there?
    Just because it might share some mechanics doesn't automatically makes it suitable for a class skin.
    I'm tempted to apply for a moderator position, just so i can go moderator on your asses.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    SNIP
    You are free to not like the idea of Class Skins, that's fair. As I have said it does have drawbacks and it is by design an entirely cosmetic addition.

    Alongside New Class and New Specs, Class Skins are just a concept as to how add more flavor and fantasy to the game. Each of these has pro and cons, and the pro of Class Skins is that it's entirely cosmetic.

    Note, the point being made is not that Class Skins are the only option, nor that some concepts would perhaps make for a better class. The point is that Class Skins are a an entirely cosmetic addition that doesn't alter gameplay, thus far more viable to implement than a new Class.

    My issue is that new Classes on their own are HIGHLY unlikely, specially since they have to be woven deeply into the context of an expansion, and let's be honest, "Kezan" is never going to be the thematic of a whole expansion.

    I have said myself that the point of this thread is talking about Class Skins, but I *do* believe a Tinker Class is possible, but it would most likely also be merged with Artificer concepts on a Cosmic/Spacefaring expansion. Honestly more likely than a Necromancer Class, cause I feel we passed that window with Shadowlands.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    While in Robo-form?

    And that is still highly unlikely, because stealth isn't usually part of the Tinker fantasy.
    If you want to say it's not usually part of the Tinker Fantasy, then you should first outline what you actually define to be part of and not part of this fantasy, before assuming everyone understand what the fuck you're talking about.

    Would you say healing is part of the Tinker fantasy? Because there are zero examples of Tinkers with any capacity to heal in Warcraft 3, Heroes of the Storm or WoW. Yet I don't see you raising any complaints over a Healing spec or how it conflicts with the Tinker fantasy. Cuz you know what? I would argue that if we're talking about a Tinker fantasy, then I would say stealth could be a part of the fantasy just as much as healing would, and none of that currently exists in any Tinker in the game right now. 'Fantasy' literally means made up fictional shit, so if you want to talk about what would fit the fantasy, I would argue that anything goes.

    The Tinker isn't actually playable, so it could be anything from a magic-user like Toki the Time-Tinker to a mad scientist like Dr. Boom.

    If you'd check out lore, you'd see the class is mostly associated with them, since they are the only technological races (other than the Dwarves, and of course the Mechagnomes).
    Yes, all as vendors or NPCs of the Engineering profession. Not as a playable class. So if you want to talk about the definition of a Tinker as it exists right now in WoW, then we're talking about Engineering NPCs.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-08-25 at 10:13 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.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except it's not just cosmetic. New animations require new hit boxes which in turn require new mechanics. It isn't the same as simply changing the color of the spell, you're essentially creating a new ability. Not a problem if its one or two things, but if you're doing this across the board in every spec, you're essentially building a new class.
    I feel that you are just circling back on the same issues while misunderstading the core conceit.

    "But you would have create a new hit box" No. Full stop. It's just cosmetic, You CAN'T alter how an ability WOKS, just how it looks.

    Again, you are free to not like the idea of Class Skins, but you keep misunderstanding the point if you keep "well you'd have to change how abilities work so it makes sense with the Tinker concept" No, the whole point is that you would have to make Tinker concept FIT IN to Druid mechanics.

    Fight like a cat that scratches and bites it's foes? Well no, those types of melee attacks don't work with the visual concept, so again we're looking at a complete animation overhaul.

    You're also completely ignoring the fact that the Claw Pack is an intermediary form between the Tinker and the mech. A Tinker class would be able to have the Goblin or Gnome have a device on their back that could deploy into the claw pack, which could then transform into a mech. That would require mechanics not currently existent within the Druid class.
    Feral, mechanically, is literally the same gameplay than a rogue, building up combo points and spend it with finishers. "Scratches and Bites" It's literally just the aesthetics. Come on man, it seems that you don't get is about Class Skins is reskining the mechanics and fantasy

    Like I am fully aware of the limitations of the Class Skin idea, but I feel like you are not even getting the conceptm to have this conversation. Again, you can believe this wouldn't do justice to the Tinker concept and gameplay possibilities, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be feasible as we have literally seen specs in game be completely reworked gameplay wise, so the argument "oh but the Claw pack is an intermediary form between mech and goblin so it can be analogous of a shapeshift form" just means nothing when Survival went from Ranged to Melee.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rogueMatthias View Post
    Much as I hate mechagnomes, Id be game if they added a druid Transformer mechagnome, that can turn into a mini jet or a tank.

    (Hopefully if they're adding new options to allied races we'll get some full robot options for them too)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Everyone wanting dark rangers for Hunters. For me I'd prefer if they added new animations so that Hunters can be Axe-Throwers instead if they want.
    The way I see it, if Tinker are never going to be their own class, I'd rather have them as a cosmetic reskin of druids.

    -It would give the Druid gameplay to so many other races.
    -The flavor alone would be just fun. Like imagine from going from a literal tank to an agile robot like the mnemnis units. Like I do find very interesting how the Kyrian constructs have different roles that could fit the Druid ones, and Mikanikos really also falls on that Tinker/Engineer/Artificer fantasy.

    I'd like axe throwers, but that WOULD be one of the things that would alter mechanics. On the other hand, if Survival was allowed to dual weild, I think they could work in the fantasy of Axe Thrower with the Aspect of the Eagle spell.

  11. #111
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,156
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWholeLifeIsThunder View Post
    I feel that you are just circling back on the same issues while misunderstading the core conceit.

    "But you would have create a new hit box" No. Full stop. It's just cosmetic, You CAN'T alter how an ability WOKS, just how it looks.
    If we’re changing a straight line magic bolt into a parabola Bomb, how are we not changing how an ability works?

    Again, you are free to not like the idea of Class Skins, but you keep misunderstanding the point if you keep "well you'd have to change how abilities work so it makes sense with the Tinker concept" No, the whole point is that you would have to make Tinker concept FIT IN to Druid mechanics.
    And once again that’s the core problem; The Tinker’s abilities make it fundamentally not a Druid.


    Feral, mechanically, is literally the same gameplay than a rogue, building up combo points and spend it with finishers. "Scratches and Bites" It's literally just the aesthetics. Come on man, it seems that you don't get is about Class Skins is reskining the mechanics and fantasy
    And mechanically a Goblin piloting a robotic suit that launches missiles and lasers shouldn’t be mechanically similar to a Rogue with a dagger and stealth.

    Like I am fully aware of the limitations of the Class Skin idea, but I feel like you are not even getting the conceptm to have this conversation.
    As I said, a class skin works fine if you’re simply altering the cosmetics of an existing class. It does not work if you’re attempting to create something that is thematically and mechanically the opposite of said existing class thus requiring an overhaul of multiple art assets and mechanics. If you’re going that route, you’re pretty much making a new class.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2021-08-25 at 10:44 PM.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    *facepalm*

    That was just an example.

    You see how you try to force the concept into every available class out there?
    Just because it might share some mechanics doesn't automatically makes it suitable for a class skin.
    Interesting - because a certain someone has said dozens, and dozens, and dozens of time that if such overlap exists, its the best reason NOT to introduce them as a new class - overlap is bad, remember?
    Quote Originally Posted by MoanaLisa View Post
    Sites have their own audiences with their own specialized opinion makers.

  13. #113
    sounds like way too much work for Blizzard. You might get glad warrior back as a 4th spec, but that is prob pushing it.

  14. #114
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So only the Balance spec would have these “Tinker” aspects? What about the other three specs?
    Other specs can use moonfire. And the guardian and feral spec would be "brawler" specs, with the mech throwing punches instead of shooting missiles and stuff.

    The very fact that you would have to make Goblins, Gnomes, and Mechagnomes Druids showcases how this doesn’t work.
    No. We don't have to.

    And what's the problem of giving "druidism" to those races? Plenty of players asking for the removal of race/class combo restrictions, for one.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by username993720 View Post
    We can reuse old features and market them as new. Wouldn't make it any good, though. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
    Sure.. But in this case we can because it works pretty well overall.

    Some classes are remarkably similar, not all. And that is because they have to follow certain rules (so, shockingly, a new class would fill roles that previous ones did). That's hardly a reason to throw a new garment at an existing class and call it a new one.
    No, you can't change what they do. You can only change how it looks with class skins.
    I don't need to change what they, only the presentation though, because that's the only real difference in the grand scheme of things. Look at it this way:

    With the current system we get a new class every what, 5 to 7 years? That leaves a lot of character concepts that just can't be made. Then when we get that new class, we have a slew of unhappy people that don't get the class they want, along with a slew of new balance issues.

    Why not work out ways to instead of getting that new class every 5 to 7 years, we get 3 or 4 skins every expansion? That's 3 or 4 character concepts that are suddenly viable. Is it as exciting as a brand new class? Of course not. But it allows a lot more people to have access to the character concept they want and without the perils of a balance nightmare.

    In the realm of feasibility. There's no reason for Tinkers to perma-stealth while wearing a claw pack (cat form) as you suggested. You just throw in whatever you think is cool instead of what is suitable.
    I don't know what to tell you if you don't think that stealth is something a tech based class could be able to do. It's pretty much a well regarded staple of the archetype. It fits the concept just fine.

    Because you already have the Tank and the DPS aspects.
    So? Why can't it have two DPS specs? What exactly prevents the Tinker concept from having both a melee and ranged DPS spec?

    Check up on Gazlowe and Mekkatorque to get an idea of what a Tinker is.
    Cool, they're two NPCs. Just like other NPCs that existed in game before the class came out, the playable class need not match them on anything approaching a 1 to 1 basis. All we need to do is cover the archetype of the class, and if we want to follow precedent, what was present in WC3. This class skin concept does exactly that.

    Monks would like to have a word with you
    And what exactly would they like to say, since they prove my point?
    Last edited by jellmoo; 2021-08-26 at 01:03 AM.

  16. #116
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well no. I agree that it can use the mechanic, but it wouldn’t be a reskin. A reskin utilized the same skeleton of the previous model, it just has a new skin over it.
    You're talking about character models, but we're talking about mechanics.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  17. #117
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Other specs can use moonfire. And the guardian and feral spec would be "brawler" specs, with the mech throwing punches instead of shooting missiles and stuff.
    Moonfire is a single spell. How do you compromise the mechanical/technological abilities of the Tinker with the naturalistic/animalistic abilities of the Druid? You would have to redo the art assets and rename the abilities of every single spec.

    You mention Guardian; How would it look with Mekkatorque's mech to make slash and maul attacks with a mech? How would it look for Mekkatorque's mech to be 99% melee attacks with a passive moonfire beam that they can only get at a higher level talent bracket? You would need to redo the attacks of pretty much the entire spec, and redo the animations and icons of abilities like Iron Fur and Stampeding Roar.

    And that's just the Guardian spec.


    No. We don't have to.
    So you're going to give Druids the Tinker concept and leave out Goblins and Gnomes?

    Hilarious.

    And what's the problem of giving "druidism" to those races? Plenty of players asking for the removal of race/class combo restrictions, for one.
    You would have to allow them to be actual Druids as well as giving the Druid class the Tinker class skin. Not only does the Tinker concept not gel with the Druid races who tend to be on the primitive side, but Druidism doesn't really work the technological basis of Goblins and Gnomes.

    Back to the point; Class skins only work if you're giving an existing class a closely related concept. Dark Rangers and Hunters work as a class skin because the Hunter class has Dark Ranger abilities currently. Warlock and Necromancer works because Warlocks have Necromancer abilities within their class currently. Sunwalkers work as a class skin because they're Tauren Paladin, so all you need to do with them is maybe give them a few altered abilities. Sort of like Bloodlust/Heroism. None of these examples requires you to add new races to existing classes. None of these examples are completely different from each other.

    Druids have no Tinker abilities within its class, and it will never get Tinker abilities because the two classes are polar opposites thematically. That's the difference.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You're talking about character models, but we're talking about mechanics.
    And I agreed that it was a similar mechanic. However, it would require far more than simply a reskin to make a Bear or a Cat into a Gnome or Goblin sitting inside a mech.

  18. #118
    class skins woulnd't be adding new 'classes' it'd be adding new 'cosmetics'

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Moonfire is a single spell. How do you compromise the mechanical/technological abilities of the Tinker with the naturalistic/animalistic abilities of the Druid? You would have to redo the art assets and rename the abilities of every single spec.
    Thats the whole point of a Class skin. New visuals, new aesthetics, same gameplay with zero balance issues to worry about.

    Nothing is compromised when the alternative is not having Tinker playable at all.
    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. #120
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    19,156
    Quote Originally Posted by mickybrighteyes View Post
    class skins woulnd't be adding new 'classes' it'd be adding new 'cosmetics'
    It's amazing how some people don't understand this....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Thats the whole point of a Class skin. New visuals, new aesthetics, same gameplay with zero balance issues to worry about.

    Nothing is compromised when the alternative is not having Tinker playable at all.
    Except you're going to have balance issues because the class skin will have to change with the host class. When you have a thematic as polar opposite as Nature and Technology, that would require Blizzard to adjust a lot of art assets repeatedly over the course of multiple patches and expansions. For example, if Guardian Druids get an armor spell called Protective Fur, and the animation is animal-based, would that mean that the Tinker class skin would need another name for the spell and animation? It certainly seems that way.

Posting Permissions

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