Thread: So… Tinkers

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
16
... LastLast
  1. #101
    I hope they start pumping out classes like they did Allied Races.
    Just give us a glut of new classes in a short period and then let the dust settle for a few years.
    I wanna be excited for Evokers but I'm not feeling the Dracthyr in their dragon forms.

    BFA would have been the perfect time to add Tinkers thematically.
    Mechagon and seeing all those Tinker NPCS on Islands and even as a raid boss.
    Azerite was the hot new thing for fueling powerful machinery, with goblins and gnomes competing in an arms race.
    Last edited by Mokrath; 2022-08-12 at 05:11 AM. Reason: add'l info

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephod View Post
    Nobody wanted lizzard ppl. Biggest L in Dragonflight is the dracthyr, and I would gladly swap them (and Evoker) for tinker. Or anything else that automatically would be better.
    so much this.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Peacemoon View Post
    Me personally I would love a Bard/Musical class. Dark Age of Camelot had 3! One for each faction.
    Dark Age of Camelot had a ton of copy/paste classes across the three factions. Aesthetically different, technically nearly identical. I really don't want to hear anyone bring of DAoC when it comes to class variety

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nephod View Post
    Nobody wanted lizzard ppl. Biggest L in Dragonflight is the dracthyr, and I would gladly swap them (and Evoker) for tinker. Or anything else that automatically would be better.
    I'd much rather have Evokers than Tinkers. Neither are my first choice, but tinkers are far from the top, and Evokers bring some interesting gameplay.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuroticaine View Post
    Dark Age of Camelot had a ton of copy/paste classes across the three factions. Aesthetically different, technically nearly identical. I really don't want to hear anyone bring of DAoC when it comes to class variety
    We can have that in a way of Class Skins, that circle around community for a long time now.

    New class as Tinker with proffesion is dull to me. Rather remove engineering or make it part of new class. But with skin - we can have goblin/gnome druids. Tinkers are mechanically same as druid, spells have same stats. But aestetically - forms will be mechasuits. Beams will be lasers. Mushrooms will be mines. Only problem will be using guns. But we could have same as Outlaw - just some gun to pull spells. Glyphs for change them. Healing spells as nature HoTs -> potion HoTs.

    Same could be Necromancers. Pick warlock, change demons with undeads, make hellfire blue. Change names, change some animations as demon horns/wings to skeletons from maldraxxus. Done. Same class, but different aestetics.

    Runemasters can be Monks. They are close enough. Just remove pandaria vibes and bring RUNES. Celestials -> Elementals, all that KI shit -> runes. Done.

    And for a last one canonical classes - battlemage. We could have Rogue skin. Unstead guns - magic casts, poisons -> magic enchantments, Stealth -> magic Stealth!

    Maybe we could have skins race-locked.
    Tinkers - gnomes, mechagnomes, goblins, mag'hars, draenei, LF draenei. Other races can have original druids.
    Necromancers - basically any race, maybe without draenei, LF draenei, taurens and HM taurens.
    Runemasters - for Taurens, HM taurens, dwarves, DI dwarves, draenei, LF draenei.
    And for Battlemage - elvish races as BE, VE, NB, maybe NE. And ofc Humans, who we are without them.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yeah but aren't you just projecting your own opinion here?
    People who say those things are in code saying "I don't want this thing and I can't imagine anyone else would so I'm going to argue that delusion that no one wants it to support my argument." We had 100,000,000 accounts as of MoP. Every possible opinion and idea has been wanted at least a few times.
    The most difficult thing to do is accept that there is nothing wrong with things you don't like and accept that people can like things you don't.

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by cparle87 View Post
    People who say those things are in code saying "I don't want this thing and I can't imagine anyone else would so I'm going to argue that delusion that no one wants it to support my argument." We had 100,000,000 accounts as of MoP. Every possible opinion and idea has been wanted at least a few times.
    I'll just ignore everything you just said because you're projecting your opinion. Thanks for the advice

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephod View Post
    Nobody wanted lizzard ppl. Biggest L in Dragonflight is the dracthyr, and I would gladly swap them (and Evoker) for tinker. Or anything else that automatically would be better.
    I'd rather have a bag och flaming hot garbage than tinkers so thank god that we got what we got.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'll just ignore everything you just said because you're projecting your opinion. Thanks for the advice
    It's a normal thing to do. It's a debate forum, where your express opinion.

    Unless you are wierd I assume.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Motorman View Post
    It was never really about Tinkers per se it was more like "the game sucks so bad that even a foolish idea like Tinkers could bring life into it".
    Im more like - this community sucks so much, that they don't know what they want. So they just ignore you.

  9. #109
    Tellin' ya, it'll never happen.

  10. #110
    The Unstoppable Force Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Dragon Isles
    Posts
    24,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    They fit expansion stories, not expansion hubs. And Undermine would just be an expansion hub, much like Dalaran for Wrath/Legion, Shatrath for TBC, etc.

    And Undermine existing as a hub does not equate tinkers being playable.
    The entire point of this is to show that there is a very viable expansion theme where Tinkers could be introduced. Obviously there’s a chance they wouldn’t introduce a Tinker class in such an expansion, but it’s rather unlikely.

    Heck, one of the major areas of Undermine is the Tinker’s Union where the world’s Tinkers congregate and create inventions and push scientific discovery. Seems like an obvious way to introduce the class to the game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dastreus View Post
    Tellin' ya, it'll never happen.
    I have yet to see an MMO that has a strong technology themes and not have a technology-based class to reflect it.

  11. #111
    Scarab Lord Polybius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Under Your Bed
    Posts
    4,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Dancaris View Post
    We can have that in a way of Class Skins, that circle around community for a long time now.

    New class as Tinker with proffesion is dull to me. Rather remove engineering or make it part of new class. But with skin - we can have goblin/gnome druids. Tinkers are mechanically same as druid, spells have same stats. But aestetically - forms will be mechasuits. Beams will be lasers. Mushrooms will be mines. Only problem will be using guns. But we could have same as Outlaw - just some gun to pull spells. Glyphs for change them. Healing spells as nature HoTs -> potion HoTs.

    Same could be Necromancers. Pick warlock, change demons with undeads, make hellfire blue. Change names, change some animations as demon horns/wings to skeletons from maldraxxus. Done. Same class, but different aestetics.

    Runemasters can be Monks. They are close enough. Just remove pandaria vibes and bring RUNES. Celestials -> Elementals, all that KI shit -> runes. Done.

    And for a last one canonical classes - battlemage. We could have Rogue skin. Unstead guns - magic casts, poisons -> magic enchantments, Stealth -> magic Stealth!

    Maybe we could have skins race-locked.
    Tinkers - gnomes, mechagnomes, goblins, mag'hars, draenei, LF draenei. Other races can have original druids.
    Necromancers - basically any race, maybe without draenei, LF draenei, taurens and HM taurens.
    Runemasters - for Taurens, HM taurens, dwarves, DI dwarves, draenei, LF draenei.
    And for Battlemage - elvish races as BE, VE, NB, maybe NE. And ofc Humans, who we are without them.
    I seriously hope we get a proper glyph system in the future. They were on the right track with WotLK and completely scuffed it in Legion. Instead we get all these spell effects tied to toys with 30 min cd... This is why I find the DR (Hunter) and Tinker (Engineering) arguments stupid, they miss the whole point of roleplay fantasy and consistent rotations.

  12. #112
    If you honestly think Bard would be a good addition to the game you're sick in the head. It's childish and doesn't fit with the rest of the classes, just like Tinker. Monk just barely slips below this line, I still don't like them.

  13. #113
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We're splitting hairs here.

    One could argue that Illidan was the focus of TBC, but it doesn't mean TBC was all about Illidan. Illidan's story and presence was less than 5% of the entire expansion.
    But I think even you would agree that Illidan was much more focused, important and developed in the storyline than, say, the ogres from Ogri'la.

    What's important is that an expansion is more than just its primary theme.
    You're arguing against a strawman because I never said or implied that an expansion's focus is the only theme in it. In fact, me pointing out there's a "focus" means there's other themes in it.

    But it is its primary theme that 'sells' the expansion, and is the overarching story that goes from beginning to end. "Come see ghostly elves" wouldn't exactly be a selling point for the Legion expansion, now would it? Or "come fight plant people" for WoD.

    Let's not forget Mekkatorque still has a bone to pick with Gallywix, who still has connections to Undermine.
    So? We would still have the focus of the story being centered on the goblins, since Undermine is a goblin city. And where would the Alliance hub be?

    Try fixing them? Dunno what you're asking here.
    You tell me. I'm not out to "fix" anything, here. I'm simply pointing out the problems I see with the concept.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The entire point of this is to show that there is a very viable expansion theme where Tinkers could be introduced.
    And I disagree. Because I fail to see any expansion theme that would necessitate or even facilitate having Undermine as a storyline focus.

    Obviously there’s a chance they wouldn’t introduce a Tinker class in such an expansion, but it’s rather unlikely.
    Again, disagree.

    Heck, one of the major areas of Undermine is the Tinker’s Union where the world’s Tinkers congregate and create inventions and push scientific discovery. Seems like an obvious way to introduce the class to the game.
    I'll use one of your own examples against you: "we had Maldraxxus, the 'birthplace of necromancy', and no necromancers?"

    I have yet to see an MMO that has a strong technology themes and not have a technology-based class to reflect it.
    World of Warcraft.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by haediff View Post
    [The bard] is childish
    Why is it?

    and doesn't fit with the rest of the classes
    Once again: why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  14. #114
    [QUOTE=Ielenia;53878070]But I think even you would agree that Illidan was much more focused, important and developed in the storyline than, say, the ogres from Ogri'la.
    [/Quotr]

    Sure, I think that's fair.

    You're arguing against a strawman because I never said or implied that an expansion's focus is the only theme in it. In fact, me pointing out there's a "focus" means there's other themes in it.
    Yet 'Focus' themes can be interpret differently.

    Some people could argue it's about the setting, some people could argue its about the big bad. There isn't exactly consistency in how Blizzard markets each expansion.

    Arguably, TBC is more about Outland than Illidan, yet here we are calling Illidan the focus of the expansion. Pandaria focuses on the Pandaren race. Cataclysm focuses on Deathwing. BFA arguably focuses on... Sylvanas.

    Would the Undermine expansion only focus on Undermine and the Goblins? I don't think so. It could merely be a setting for something greater, just as Kul Tiras and Zandalar and their respected races were merely platforms for Sylvanas' war.

    But it is its primary theme that 'sells' the expansion, and is the overarching story that goes from beginning to end. "Come see ghostly elves" wouldn't exactly be a selling point for the Legion expansion, now would it? Or "come fight plant people" for WoD.
    Then it all depends on how they market Tinkers and Undermine. I mean we could say the same, if Dracthyr were merely Dragonkin as we knew em since Vanilla, they wouldn't be a strong selling point. Drac'thyr is a far superior, new concept that can use all 5 Dragonflight's magic.

    So? We would still have the focus of the story being centered on the goblins, since Undermine is a goblin city. And where would the Alliance hub be?
    Wherever they want it to be.

    Dalaran was an Alliance city, the horde got a niche carved out for them just fine.

    You tell me. I'm not out to "fix" anything, here. I'm simply pointing out the problems I see with the concept.
    Most of your concerns are excuses, not problems. Like asking where the Alliance hub would be - does it matter? It could be Dalaran again for both factions for all we know. It doesn't really matter cuz Blizzard will invent a solution, and there isn't reason to consider this an actual problem.

    Like, would you legitimately argue that Undermine could not be presented as a new expansion zone because of the lack of a known Alliance connection hub? I surely hope not.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 03:04 PM.

  15. #115
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Would the Undermine expansion only focus on Undermine and the Goblins? I don't think so.
    But it is a goblin city. Cities, as far as I can understand from past expansions, city hubs need to either be neutral in terms of representation, or have separate hubs.

    Then it all depends on how they market Tinkers and Undermine.
    And I've stated that I can't see any way to make Undermine the main focus of an expansion as a hub.

    I mean we could say the same, if Dracthyr were merely Dragonkin as we knew em since Vanilla, they wouldn't be a strong selling point.
    Wouldn't they? I disagree.

    Drac'thyr is a far superior, new concept that can use all 5 Dragonflight's magic.
    And then it raises the question of why couldn't the dragonkin be empowered to use all the dragonflight's magic, or, I don't know, make a different class? Or not add a class, just add the race? "Play as a dragon" has been a very requested topic throughout the years, and dragonkin were the 'humanoid dragons' of WoW until the flying geckos came along.

    Dalaran was an Alliance city, the horde got a niche carved out for them just fine.
    Dalaran also had blood elves in the council. Dalaran was also littered with blood elves living and working outside the "Horde area". Dalaran was as much Horde as it was Alliance.

    Like asking where the Alliance hub would be - does it matter? It could be Dalaran again for both factions for all we know.
    It's not "for all we know". We're talking about an expansion's main hub being Undermine.

    Like, would you legitimately argue that Undermine could not be presented as a new expansion zone because of the lack of a known Alliance connection hub? I surely hope not.
    I'm saying it could work like a zone, much like Suramar. But as an expansion's hub, where leaders of both factions, quests and other stuff would be for both factions? Not really.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    But it is a goblin city. Cities, as far as I can understand from past expansions, city hubs need to either be neutral in terms of representation, or have separate hubs.
    What part of ' Goblins are neutral' don't you understand?

    The trade princes of Kezan are faction neutral. Have been since WC3 lore.

    The bilgewater are exceptions, the rest are neutral.

    That is why Gadgetzan is a neutral city.

    And I've stated that I can't see any way to make Undermine the main focus of an expansion as a hub.
    The same way you couldn't see how Evokers could use Black Dragon magic, prolly

    And then it raises the question of why couldn't the dragonkin be empowered to use all the dragonflight's magic, or, I don't know, make a different class? Or not add a class, just add the race? "Play as a dragon" has been a very requested topic throughout the years, and dragonkin were the 'humanoid dragons' of WoW until the flying geckos came along.
    All non issues in the end since they invented a solution. See what I mean?


    I'm saying it could work like a zone, much like Suramar. But as an expansion's hub, where leaders of both factions, quests and other stuff would be for both factions? Not really.
    Sure
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 04:04 PM.

  17. #117
    The Unstoppable Force Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Dragon Isles
    Posts
    24,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And I disagree. Because I fail to see any expansion theme that would necessitate or even facilitate having Undermine as a storyline focus.
    You mean like Pandaria? There was no reason we needed to go to Pandaria, and the story was rather derivative. However, we got MoP simply because the devs wanted to create an expansion about Pandaria.


    I'll use one of your own examples against you: "we had Maldraxxus, the 'birthplace of necromancy', and no necromancers?"
    Because we already had an available class that utilizes the WC Necromancer’s ability kit.

    World of Warcraft.
    Correct. And that bodes well for a future Tinker implementation.

  18. #118
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    What part of ' Goblins are neutral' don't you understand?
    And what part of "representation" don't you understand? It doesn't matter if the goblins of Undermine may or may not be neutral. It's still goblins, goblins, goblins.

    I literally just explained how expansion hubs in WoW have either roughly equivalent representation of the factions' races (Dalaran), have a separate race altogether (Oribos) or are separate hubs (Dazar'alor/Boralus), and it's from there that I'm drawing the inference that Undermine wouldn't work as an expansion hub, in my opinion.

    All non issues in the end since they invented a solution. See what I mean?
    No, because you're dodging the point. You stated that dragonkin wouldn't be as popular as dracthyr, and that's what I'm contesting.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You mean like Pandaria? There was no reason we needed to go to Pandaria, and the story was rather derivative. However, we got MoP simply because the devs wanted to create an expansion about Pandaria.
    *shrug*

    Pandaria is a continent, not a city. Either way, I still fail to see any expansion that would necessitate or even facilitate having Undermine as a storyline focus. I fail to see any threat that would necessitate the tinkers.

    Not to mention that the monk concept for the player did not exist, unlike the technology concept that already exists and has existed since vanilla WoW in the form of engineering, allowing the players to craft wondrous and technological devices, giving a battle-rez to classes that couldn't, a "teleport to expansion continent" to those who aren't mages, allowing you to fly around in mechs and constructing powerful guns.

    Because we already had an available class that utilizes the WC Necromancer’s ability kit.
    We already had classes that used the WC3 demon hunter's kit, and we know how well that excuse worked. Death knights do not preclude the existence of necromancers much like paladins do not preclude the existence of priests.

    Correct. And that bodes well for a future Tinker implementation.
    Or not, considering we've been... what? Closing in to two decades of WoW updates and expansions and nothing yet...
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And what part of "representation" don't you understand? It doesn't matter if the goblins of Undermine may or may not be neutral. It's still goblins, goblins, goblins.

    I literally just explained how expansion hubs in WoW have either roughly equivalent representation of the factions' races (Dalaran), have a separate race altogether (Oribos) or are separate hubs (Dazar'alor/Boralus), and it's from there that I'm drawing the inference that Undermine wouldn't work as an expansion hub, in my opinion.
    You gave me 3 perfectly viable solutions, and still hang on the an excuse of 'I can't see how any of these perfectly viable solutions could be applied to this Main City of NPCs who have been Faction Neutral since Warcraft 3'. Like, literally any of the above solutions would work here, no problem. It could be like Dalaran, or be like Oribos, or be divided like Boralus/Dzlolr. Like, literally pick any and it would work.

    I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for.

    This is literally the same fallacious logic you were passing with the Evoker being unable to use Black Dragon magic because 'they don't have a Spec dedicated to it'. And then it's like you followed that up by saying "Well the Black Dragon magic could be core abilities and not be its own spec, but I can't see that working. In my opinion.". It's a non-issue, and more importantly, it's a you-issue. I don't know how else to put it, really.

    No, because you're dodging the point. You stated that dragonkin wouldn't be as popular as dracthyr, and that's what I'm contesting.
    I didn't say they wouldn't be popular.

    I said they wouldn't be a strong selling point. Big difference.

    Dracthyr have immediate marketability because they're not constrained by any lore or visual limitations that the existing Dragonkin race is restricted to (creatively). There is a strong marketability in presenting an all new race that has as much customization and diversity as the Dracthyr have been shown to have. I wouldn't imagine Dragonkin to be able to use animations like Soar or Deep Breath the same way that we see Dracthyr being capable of.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 04:27 PM.

  20. #120
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You gave me 3 perfectly viable solutions, and still hang on the an excuse of 'I can't see how any of these perfectly viable solutions could be applied to this Main City of NPCs who have been Faction Neutral since Warcraft 3'.
    Except solutions #1 and #2 do not work because Undermine is neither a multi-race hub, nor is of a separate race altogether. And #3 fails because we don't have one for the Alliance.

    I didn't say they wouldn't be popular.

    I said they wouldn't be a strong selling point. Big difference.
    Zero difference. I'm still contesting your assertion.

    Dracthyr have immediate marketability because they're not constrained by any lore or visual limitations that the existing Dragonkin race is restricted to (creatively). There is much more marketability in presenting an all new race that is capable of wielding all 5 dragonflight's powers, as opposed to trying to retroactively explain how Dragonkin as we know them would be able to be Evokers.
    Big disagree. The dracthyr is still just as constrained, creatively speaking, considering it's supposed to resemble dragons, just like dragonkin does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

Posting Permissions

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