April 19 Tinker Reveal

[Inoculate]

There will never be WoW Classic. Never.

Remember it before posting: will never be. Also, shouldn't you be in the Warlock forums incessantly complaining?

Given tinkerererer is in april fools patch notes, guess the jokes on you.

[huth]

This is what I've been saying as well. I don't think it eliminates the possibility that we might get Tinkers in the future; maybe even as early as 10.0.

Just think for a second what it would have sounded like without that 'Tinker', especially to somebody not familiar with the concept of feature leaks, and you see why they did it.

I'm still for Tinkler as next new class.

[Alanar]

Aye, but it was the flavor text that got me. A good laugh at all who makes these "leaks".

The word tinker in there makes it not just about leaks in general. I read two things here.

[Calfredd]

Given tinkerererer is in april fools patch notes, guess the jokes on you.

I think you need to reread my post and the post I was replying to if you think I was made a fool.

[Trazzle]

Glad we’ll find out soon and see who’s got their foot in their mouth.

[Nightshade711]

Would be funny if they still bring in tinker but use a different name like mechanic or something.

Still have my doubts tinkers will happen next xpac overall if it’s dragon themed. (Unless the focus is more on Titan tech I guess)
Will they happen eventually? Of course.

[threads]

tinkers were an april fools joke but dark rangers weren't.

[Ielenia]

Nah, WoD broke the cycle of “Race > Class > Race > Class”
Technically MoP broke the cycle too because it got both a new race and a new class.

Besides there’s no class that could’ve viably been put in SL.

... I hope you're realizing you're making my argument for me, here....

- - - Updated - - -

In most cases, what it really means is, “My head is so far up my ass that I can’t even recognize that other people might disagree with me, so I think my opinion is objective.”

If that is how you wish to classify your own arguments, be my guest.

[Deadmines]

As much as I'd like Tinkers, I think this is the nail in the coffin for them to appear in 10.0. If they were planning on including Tinkers, it seems to me that they'd have just listed the April Fool's class as just "Leaker" right and excluded the Tinker mention entirely. Nothing in the class description really even references the Tinker aspect, just the leaker aspect. It's a fairly unnecessary addition to the gag.

So er... Dragon class I guess?

[Triceron]

I suppose you could say that if your intention is to completely and dishonestly misrepresent my arguments.

As long as you intend to keep shifting them, there's no way for you to honestly represent them yourself either.

Really?! Care to link to some of those discussions? Because all I know about is about the runemaster, and nothing concrete was said about why they did not pick that particular concept.

We do know that they planned to limit it down to 8 classes at start, which is the reason why they decided to cut many of their concepts down. Otherwise there would have been what, 27 classes?

With Wrath, we also know the reasons why Necromancer and Runemaster were cut. Xelnath's blog details how the DK became playable, and how it was put into an internal 'vote' (involving a 1-to-1 discussion with designers and talking out the pros and cons between Runemaster and DK) with the DK eventually winning through, given to Corey Stockton to design. The end result is a DK with elements of the Runemaster and Necromancer added back into their concept.

With Legion, we know that the Demon Hunter was planned for a long time, but not made playable. It was technically never 'cut', but if you consider this was a concept that existed as far back as being considered in the original 27 classes, then in a way you could consider that being 'cut' in Vanilla and finally making its way back into Legion. And along the way, Xelnath had planned to absorb the DH completely into the Warlock, an idea he pushed for but others pushed back on. Again, detailed on his blog.


With all the information we have on class design behind the scenes, where do we see Professions being any significant factor on deciding what classes become playable and what doesn't? There isn't any.

I asked you to prove your claim. You remain silent on the matter. I'm giving you plenty of chances to explain yourself here. You're the one choosing to divert the topic away.

[Nightshade711]

... I hope you're realizing you're making my argument for me, here....

If your point was that class>race cycle every expansion have been broken already and thus makes sense why Shadowlands has no new race or class, then sure.

[Auburst]

Give me Dragonsworn instead.

[Elflover99]

I am expecting a Darkfallen AR that serves as "Dark Rangers: the race" in 9.2.5 and an actual new class and/or race in 10.0.

Drakonid have a unique female form in Hearthstone (boobs + no tentacle beard) so that would be the most likely dragon race.

https://hearthstone.fandom.com/wiki/...konid_full.jpg

[Triceron]

I am expecting a Darkfallen AR that serves as "Dark Rangers: the race" in 9.2.5 and an actual new class and/or race in 10.0.

Drakonid have a unique female form in Hearthstone (boobs + no tentacle beard) so that would be the most likely dragon race.

https://hearthstone.fandom.com/wiki/...konid_full.jpg

A face only a mother could love :P

[Shadowferal]

Given tinkerererer is in april fools patch notes, guess the jokes on you.

I'm thinking a "tink" should show... in the form of a particular fairy.

[wushootaki]

I suppose you could say that if your intention is to completely and dishonestly misrepresent my arguments.


Really?! Care to link to some of those discussions? Because all I know about is about the runemaster, and nothing concrete was said about why they did not pick that particular concept.

- - - Updated - - -


Again: "3 for 3" we should've had a class in Shadowlands. How did that go?

And in case you try to duck out of way of my point again: patterns are bullshit if your intention is to state facts about future classes.

We weren't guaranteed anything in shadowlands. You are saying we "should've" like there was proof we were going to have a class...a definitive, yes we will get a class in Shadowlands. Its the same argument you are using against why they won't use pre-existing classes as a template for the next class they add. And you try to show a pattern, but the pattern was broken 10 years ago in MoP. The pattern for WC3 units becoming the next playable launch class hasn't been broken yet.

It doesn't matter when a 4th class is added post-launch, because the argument isn't about when it will be. It's about what it will be. There is no definititve time frame.

We've gone from 2 new races (and class added to opposite faction - TBC), to new class (WotLK), to 2 new races (Cata), to new race and class (MoP), to nothing (WoD), to new class/allied races (Legion), to allied races (BfA), to nothin (SL - unless they drop allied races in 9.2.5).

All this shows is when they are adding things, not what (type of race/class) those things are. A better argument for you would be how they've ignored pre-existing racial requests like High Elf, Ogre, and Naga to buck the system by adding completely NEW things like Void Elf and Vulpera.

None of this changes that 3 of the last 3 post-launch classes are refurbished WC3 heroes. Not getting a class in SL doesn't change that we are still 3 for 3 new classes coming from WC3 units.

[lazypeon100]

Pretty sure you misunderstood my post, I was agreeing with you…

He seems incredibly aggressive for no discernable reason. I wouldn't worry about it.

More on topic, I just want more ranged weapon game play. Three new classes, all of which have been melee and we only have one ranged weapon class. So whether it is tinker or some other class, is fine by me.

[Chadow]

Bard or nothing...

I dont like tinker

[deviantcultist]

Good news for some, bad news for others - it's safe to assume Tinker is not a thing for 10.0 regardless.

[Triceron]

The pattern for WC3 units becoming the next playable launch class hasn't been broken yet.

Well, it hasn't been broken, but we have plenty of evidence that a non-WC3 hero was a frontrunner as a playable class multiple times.

Had an internal vote turned out differently, we could have gotten Runemaster instead of Warlocks or Death Knights.

Runemaster got so far up the chain that it was literally neck-in-neck with the Death Knight in consideration, coming down to 1-on-1 conversations with the designers.
DK was voted in favour, with the cool ideas of the Runemaster incorporated into a DK class which was a better thematic fit for Wrath.


If internally they could consider a non-WC3 class that far up the chain instead of simply considering other WC3 Heroes like Dark Ranger or Shadow Hunter, then really there's no real pattern that the devs are really sticking to.

It just happens that most of the Heroes we got were based on WC3 ones; and even then Monk is absolutely arguable since there is no 'Monk' Hero in WC3. A Brewmaster was incorporated as a spec, while the Monk itself is a completely new creation that has many abilities and themes not present in WC3 at all. It's mostly a new archetype completely, with one spec simply homaging the WC3 hero, rather than the entire class built around it.

Like for example, if you took the Brewmaster spec out of the Monk, what remains is literally a Monk concept that has relatively nothing to do with Warcraft 3 Heroes and themes. You can't really say the same about DK's and Demon Hunters, who would still be based on the WC3 Hero concepts even if you removed any single spec away. The core class and themes of a Monk is brand new to WoW.