We will probably see a new Class during the Worldsoul Saga

[Enrif]

Yet in pretty much every future class poll, that type of class has handily beat out other options.

False. The tinker has polled well. Not a tinker race locked to small races only. These are two very different things.

[Teriz]

Because YOU repeatedly brought it up claiming that as proof. It's always been a very flimsy argument, given that every added class is always very closely connected thematically to the entirety of the expansion when they are released, while your argument would tie it solely to a single patch in the previous expansion.

You grossly overestimate my reach. It wasn't me on twitter, Wowhead, and the official forums saying "Tinker when?" when those Speaker Brinthe pics starting showing up.

Because Warcraft 3 ended 20 years ago, and as such there have been no heroes added in that sense at all since then despite the universe expanding far beyond it. If it had, then stuff like Draenei Artificer and some form of Iron Horde tech hero would have been obvious additions, but the reality of the situation is that WoW alone has been expanding the setting for the vast majority of the franchise now. Its additions must clearly start being included in new classes (as they did for Evoker, which was an entirely new creation to replicate the dragon powers that existed in lore).

Uh they added Demon Hunters which originated in WC3, and that was only 8 years ago. And yes, the Evoker class was also based on Alexstraza and Deathwing, hero characters that actually predate WC3. With that said, we still don't have Gazlowe's class in playable form, and it's a tech-class concept.

Again, you're basing that off of the results, and not the intention. Dragons had appeal, and Blizzard attempted to deliver on that with Dracthyr. They failed, for a variety of reasons, and because of that they ended up an unpopular race. But I highly doubt that they created it with the intention of it being as unpopular as it is, while with those races they already have the data for their lack of popularity. (Also, it remains to be seen if Dracthyr actually remain unpopular once they have other class options, but that's ultimately irrelevant here)

Uh they created the class to try to bring in new players. Any player that is now maining an Evoker is an accomplishment of the new class, because that person maining an Evoker is a person that is now paying a subscription. Again, their goal with new classes is not to pull existing players off of their current character/class, but its to pull in players who currently aren't playing, but want to be a dragon class, or really likes the Dragon aspects. Their current popularity is a non-issue, because it's going to grow over time.

It's not a direct correlation, sure, but all of those classes have at least some options with widespread appeal. As such, most players should be able to find at least one that suits them, making it primarily a matter of whether they like the class. Your list only has very niche options, so it creates an actual barrier that doesn't exist for anything else (apart from Dracthyr, which, again, is unpopular primarily because Blizzard failed to deliver a good recreation of a dragon).

Really? If we're using your goofy argument, then a player rolling a Druid only has Night Elves as an option, since every other Druid racial option is middle to lower tier popularity wise. Despite that, why is Druid still the most popular race in the game?

Again, Evoker was entirely new, creating a way to use the dragon magics that have existed in lore but not playable in WC3 (I know you love pretending it came from HotS, but it didn't- it drew from WoW by using the same lore to create heroes that were very different from Evoker, and HotS is a spinoff that one-sidedly draws from WoW and Blizzard's other main games. It did not add anything new to any of those franchises, just as Smash Bros does not create entirely new things to send back to other games). And it would be a colossal misstep to ignore the fact that WoW has already expanded technology far beyond Gazlowe. Romuul, for example, would be just as valid of an inspiration.

Romuul isn't nearly as well-known or as popular as Gazlowe.

Yes, a technology class would be a popular concept- not the racial restrictions that you alone are trying to force. There's a lot of different kinds of technology in WoW now, and I doubt most people are thinking of the least popular races in particular when they vote for it, so I'm sure a lot of people would be very disappointed if it turns out to be overly focused on those racial themes. Which is why I favor a customization tab like Druids have for Moonkin now, to let you choose a style and customize your tech. That way they can actually include a wide variety of stuff and actually fulfil people's hopes.

The difference is that with Druids the differences stop at the forms. A technology class would require not only a difference in forms, but with device summons (turrets, robots, claw packs, etc.) as well. It would actually require more unique assets per race than the Druid class, so obviously we're talking about a class with limited racial options.

- - - Updated - - -

False. The tinker has polled well. Not a tinker race locked to small races only. These are two very different things.

You really think people don't know that that class is Goblin/Gnome-based?

[username993720]

A Pandaren who didn't introduce the Monk class.


The pattern you're looking for doesn't exist. Blizzard can add any class without a hero tied to the front cover

Do you see an Evoker on the cover of Dragonflight? Is Alexatrasza a Dracthyr?

Evokers were not a thing before. People need known figures on the front cover to buy the box.

[Eldryth]

You grossly overestimate my reach. It wasn't me on twitter, Wowhead, and the official forums saying "Tinker when?" when those Speaker Brinthe pics starting showing up.

Yes, there was a bit of speculation over the claw pack (which I think was found to just be a cosmetic backpiece iirc? Either way, it died quickly), but the vast majority of it started with you repeatedly insisting that Undermine possibly appearing means Tinkers in the completely unrelated next expansion somehow. Or, even more ridiculously, as a mid-expansion class, but even with their past mistakes I can't imagine Blizzard being dumb enough to skip marketing it and releasing it without proper testing, especially after seeing what a disaster Augmentation's initial release was.

Uh they added Demon Hunters which originated in WC3, and that was only 8 years ago. And yes, the Evoker class was also based on Alexstraza and Deathwing, hero characters that actually predate WC3. With that said, we still don't have Gazlowe's class in playable form, and it's a tech-class concept.

All completely irrelevant. Yes, they did add stuff from WC3, but that does not change that they can and should add stuff that was added to the setting later. The Aspects were never Heros in WC3, which is what you were insisting was relevant- if you expand it to include other characters like them, then other characters (like, as I mentioned, Romuul) are also relevant. And while Gazlowe should be represented in a tech class, the fact remains that it has grown far beyond him over the course of WoW.

Uh they created the class to try to bring in new players. Any player that is now maining an Evoker is an accomplishment of the new class, because that person maining an Evoker is a person that is now paying a subscription. Again, their goal with new classes is not to pull existing players off of their current character/class, but its to pull in players who currently aren't playing, but want to be a dragon class, or really likes the Dragon aspects. Their current popularity is a non-issue, because it's going to grow over time.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue now, this is even more pointless and nonsensical than your usual arguments. That was a response to you insisting that Blizzard deliberately chooses to make stuff that would be played less, to justify claiming that they would actually want to create a class that is limited to races that most people don't want to play. And the fact remains that unlike the Dracthyr, they have the hard data to know in advance that those races are unpopular.

Really? If we're using your goofy argument, then a player rolling a Druid only has Night Elves as an option, since every other Druid racial option is middle to lower tier popularity wise. Despite that, why is Druid still the most popular race in the game?

Tauren and Trolls are also far more popular than any of the races you want to include. Zandalari also beats out every single one of them, and Worgen is only below Vulpera. None of them come close to Night Elf, sure, but it's still vastly less restricting than the arbitrary restrictions you want for Tinker. Plus, Druid is probably the class that would be least affected by this given that you don't actually see your character on most specs.

Romuul isn't nearly as well-known or as popular as Gazlowe.

As an individual, perhaps, but Draenei tech is absolutely well known and popular. And that is what is important, as much as you want to focus on individual characters. There is absolutely demand for a class that represents that. In fact, the Draenei Heritage quest also started a lot of Artificer speculation... for what that's worth, given your fixation on people speculating about the backpiece.

The difference is that with Druids the differences stop at the forms. A technology class would require not only a difference in forms, but with device summons (turrets, robots, claw packs, etc.) as well. It would actually require more unique assets per race than the Druid class, so obviously we're talking about a class with limited racial options.

Yes, which is why I'd said repeatedly that I'm very skeptical that they'll manage to do the concept justice. But the fact remains that nothing less would suffice to actually live up to what everyone voting for the class wants. Any specific racial theme would only fit a small portion of the fans' expectations. Failing that, I think a neutral Titan theme would probably have the most widespread appeal if they have to pick a single aesthetic. Focusing on some of the least popular races would certainly give it an especially niche appeal. (I personally might be able to deal with Gnomish tech if I could use it on a race of my choice, depending on the execution, but Goblin tech or having to play as most of the races you want would ruin it for me)

You really think people don't know that that class is Goblin/Gnome-based?

We know that you want it to be Goblin/Gnome-based. The fact remains that the concept has evolved a lot in the lore since the WC3 Tinker you are so fixated on, as so many different kind of technology have been added and people have grown attached to different things. Fixating on two of the least popular races won't live up to most people's hopes.

[Teriz]

I’ll never understand how some posters believe that a class that took the idea of visage forms, the 5 Dragonflights, has customization options lifted from high-profile NPCs, abilities from draconic HotS heroes, abilities divided up based on flights, etc. came from “nowhere”.

[Ielenia]

You can't have the cake and eat it, too. Either it's a Sylvanas only thing or, as we've seen, a Hunter base ability\Hero Talent one\other franchises' one. It seems like your argument doesn't hold water about the uniqueness of Sylvanas.

You've lost the thread of the argument. I simply pointed out that if the hunter's Binding Shot is domination magic, then it's not a dark ranger thing because it'd be something given to Sylvanas by the Jailer; but if the hunter's Binding Shot is not domination magic, it's still not a dark ranger thing because it's an ability that has existed in the hunter class long before Blizzard officially put the dark ranger as part of the hunter class.

You've just said it. Now.

Now, and forever. Again, what you're doing here is akin to believing you'll be hit by lightning if you go out in a thunderstorm, or be in a car crash if you enter a car, or be robbed the moment you try to walk past an alleyway. You're hoping for something with an infinitesimally small chance of happening to happen.

That's a QoL difference.

It is literally not a "quality of life difference". You're trying to dilute the term to make it mean everything you want to fit your argument. No, the differences between "borrowed power" and "evergreen talents" is not a "quality of life" thing.

Anyway, like the two others, it's just an appendix. Easily removed.

It is not. We're not talking about one ability. We're talking about a whole set of talents, ten levels worth of talents, that are likely to become 20 when Midnight arrives, and 30 when The Last Titan launches, if the 10 levels per expansion trend remains the same.

So, it is not core to the gameplay of the classes and can be removed if needed.

What are you even trying to say here.

Accepting or not, i don't need to abide by Blizzard's decisions. I can have my own opinion.

You can have your own opinion, but what you want goes against reality, really.

[Triceron]

Still doesn't make them the iconic DH characters. Like Death Knights wouldn't be introduced by any other than the Lich King and Monks by Chen.
----
Evokers were not a thing before. People need known figures on the front cover to buy the box.

What do known figures have to do with new classes if Evoker shows us they don't have to be on the cover at all?

Evokers weren't introduced by Alexstrasza either. They had their own unique awakening questline that introduced themselves. They can add any class without tying them to some face on a box. You aren't making any point here.

[Teriz]

Yes, there was a bit of speculation over the claw pack (which I think was found to just be a cosmetic backpiece iirc? Either way, it died quickly),

Yeah, and the point is that people saw the claw pack and immediately thought back to the WC3 and HotS hero. Which shows that people still remember the hero unit years later. Theres quite a bit of power in that level of recognition among a fanbase.

but the vast majority of it started with you repeatedly insisting that Undermine possibly appearing means Tinkers in the completely unrelated next expansion somehow. Or, even more ridiculously, as a mid-expansion class, but even with their past mistakes I can't imagine Blizzard being dumb enough to skip marketing it and releasing it without proper testing, especially after seeing what a disaster Augmentation's initial release was.

No, the vast majority started completely outside this forum with Gazlowe being announced as a character of importance in TWW, and later Undermine being name dropped in Khaz Algar. There were wowhead articles writing about both occurrences and once again you had people saying “Tinker when?”

Again, it’s flattering that you think I’m the source of all things tinker on the net, but the reality is that WC Goblins are more beloved than their population numbers would have you believe.

All completely irrelevant. Yes, they did add stuff from WC3, but that does not change that they can and should add stuff that was added to the setting later. The Aspects were never Heros in WC3, which is what you were insisting was relevant- if you expand it to include other characters like them, then other characters (like, as I mentioned, Romuul) are also relevant. And while Gazlowe should be represented in a tech class, the fact remains that it has grown far beyond him over the course of WoW.

Here’s the thing though. The Aspects are also far more popular than Romuul. You know what’s one thing Arthas, Chen, Illidan, Alexstraza, Chromie, and Deathwing all have in common? They all appeared in Heroes of the Storm. You know what else they have in common? Their RTS/MOBA abilities appeared in new classes. Gazlowe is in that club, Romuul is not.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue now, this is even more pointless and nonsensical than your usual arguments.

I’m saying that a new class is primarily geared towards people not playing WoW, so current racial population numbers are meaningless.

Tauren and Trolls are also far more popular than any of the races you want to include. Zandalari also beats out every single one of them, and Worgen is only below Vulpera. None of them come close to Night Elf, sure, but it's still vastly less restricting than the arbitrary restrictions you want for Tinker. Plus, Druid is probably the class that would be least affected by this given that you don't actually see your character on most specs.

Yeah you missed the point entirely. I wasn’t comparing that to a possible Tinker class, I was pointing out that outside of Night Elves, you got some mid-ranged to low-range races there, with NE being the only standout.

As an individual, perhaps, but Draenei tech is absolutely well known and popular. And that is what is important, as much as you want to focus on individual characters. There is absolutely demand for a class that represents that. In fact, the Draenei Heritage quest also started a lot of Artificer speculation... for what that's worth, given your fixation on people speculating about the backpiece.

Popular among who? I’ve seen zero threads where people are requesting a Draenei based tech-class.

Also how would this class even function? Gazlowe WC3 and HotS gives us a blueprint for how a class would work. We have nothing like that for a Draenei artificer.

Yes, which is why I'd said repeatedly that I'm very skeptical that they'll manage to do the concept justice. But the fact remains that nothing less would suffice to actually live up to what everyone voting for the class wants. Any specific racial theme would only fit a small portion of the fans' expectations. Failing that, I think a neutral Titan theme would probably have the most widespread appeal if they have to pick a single aesthetic. Focusing on some of the least popular races would certainly give it an especially niche appeal. (I personally might be able to deal with Gnomish tech if I could use it on a race of my choice, depending on the execution, but Goblin tech or having to play as most of the races you want would ruin it for me)

Thing is, the Titan tech we’d have access to (Mimiron) matches Gnome/Goblin tech. So even if we go that route we’re looking at a goblin/gnome class once again.

We know that you want it to be Goblin/Gnome-based. The fact remains that the concept has evolved a lot in the lore since the WC3 Tinker you are so fixated on, as so many different kind of technology have been added and people have grown attached to different things. Fixating on two of the least popular races won't live up to most people's hopes.

Here’s the thing though; Thd DK class was based on Arthas. The Monk class was based on Chen. Demon Hunters were based on Illidan. The Evoker was based on the Aspects. Why wouldn’t the next class follow suit?

- - - Updated - - -

Where is the evidence for that? "I want it so" is not evidence, I'll add that caveat.

My evidence being that blizzard has a very good track record of bringing over the ultimate abilities from WC3 into WoW

[Enrif]

You really think people don't know that that class is Goblin/Gnome-based?

That's now what i said and you know it.

People are fine with the idea of the tinker: Machines, Bombs, Guns. Doesn't mean they want it a class that can be only played by Goblin, Gnomes and Vulpera.

People want Mag'har Tinkers, Kul'tiran Tinkers, Dwarf Tinkers, Blood Elf Tinkers. Any other race you can think of.

No one, except perhaps you, wants a tinker that can only be Goblin and Gnome.

We see this a lot in some asian MMOs where there are certain classes only available to a fringe race (lookin at TERA) that no one want to play, because they would have to play a race they dislike.

Demon Hunter works, because Elves are always popular. Evoker works, because Dragons are popular. Goblins and Gnomes are not popular.

[Eldryth]

I’ll never understand how some posters believe that a class that took the idea of visage forms, the 5 Dragonflights, has customization options lifted from high-profile NPCs, abilities from draconic HotS heroes, abilities divided up based on flights, etc. came from “nowhere”.

Arguing against something nobody said now so that you can be right about something?

Of course Evokers came from the draconic lore. But they were an entirely new creation Blizzard came up with to make that lore playable. There were no WC3 heroes to base them on (in fact, no WC3 presence at all), no abilities pulled from elsewhere. All they needed to create the class was an established setting. Even the irrelevant spinoff you're so fixated on only pulled from the same lore, and had very little overlap with what the WoW team came up with for Evokers.

Likewise, they absolutely can and should come up with a concept that represents the more varied technology that exists at this point. If you have to compare it to Evokers, then fixating on Goblins and Gnomes would be like fixating on Deathwing and insisting that it must be exactly like him and can't possibly include the other Dragonflight's powers.

Anyway, I'm done, this is going nowhere and isn't worth the headache. It was a mistake trying to engage with you, I should have remembered- no matter what everyone says, you'll just misrepresent it and still somehow think you have a point.

[FelPlague]

I would love a support based demon hunter spec like augmentation but with a ranged weapon, empowering arrows/bullets/bolts and empowering allies, opening weak points and debuffing enemies.

[Vaedan]

I would love a support based demon hunter spec like augmentation but with a ranged weapon, empowering arrows/bullets/bolts and empowering allies, opening weak points and debuffing enemies.

Support theme does not seems to be fitting for DHs. Debuffing is fine, but buffing others, not so much.

As for 3rd DH spec, I think it could be really fun if they made it caster. I know, it could be quite mean towards warlocks, but metamorphosis based fel caster is cool concept. Also in WC3, Meta turned your attacks to ranged chaos bolts, so that foundation is there and DHs already has some caster based attacks, like Fel Barrage.

[username993720]

You've lost the thread of the argument. I simply pointed out that if the hunter's Binding Shot is domination magic, then it's not a dark ranger thing because it'd be something given to Sylvanas by the Jailer; but if the hunter's Binding Shot is not domination magic, it's still not a dark ranger thing because it's an ability that has existed in the hunter class long before Blizzard officially put the dark ranger as part of the hunter class.

It had a chains animation until they changed it to an arcane arrow.

You miss the part where Dark Chains are part of the Dark Ranger hero talents, connecting Sylvanas' kit to the concept even further.

Now, and forever. Again, what you're doing here is akin to believing you'll be hit by lightning if you go out in a thunderstorm, or be in a car crash if you enter a car, or be robbed the moment you try to walk past an alleyway. You're hoping for something with an infinitesimally small chance of happening to happen.

But, it can happen.
And let's hope that it will.

It is literally not a "quality of life difference". You're trying to dilute the term to make it mean everything you want to fit your argument. No, the differences between "borrowed power" and "evergreen talents" is not a "quality of life" thing.

That's not what i was referring to, but the UI issues you pointed out.

It is not. We're not talking about one ability. We're talking about a whole set of talents, ten levels worth of talents, that are likely to become 20 when Midnight arrives, and 30 when The Last Titan launches, if the 10 levels per expansion trend remains the same.

That would create a bloat?
Why create them in the first place if they could just added them as extra talent options?

What are you even trying to say here.

That these hero talents are as crucial to their classes as artifact and covenant trees were.

You can have your own opinion, but what you want goes against reality, really.

What if Blizzard hires a dev or a whole group of devs with a mindest like me?

What do known figures have to do with new classes if Evoker shows us they don't have to be on the cover at all?

Evokers weren't introduced by Alexstrasza either. They had their own unique awakening questline that introduced themselves. They can add any class without tying them to some face on a box. You aren't making any point here.

It's a dragon expansion with a class using aspect powers. Obviously, alextrasza ties to that because there were no Evokers.

[Teriz]

That's now what i said and you know it.

People are fine with the idea of the tinker: Machines, Bombs, Guns. Doesn't mean they want it a class that can be only played by Goblin, Gnomes and Vulpera.

People want Mag'har Tinkers, Kul'tiran Tinkers, Dwarf Tinkers, Blood Elf Tinkers. Any other race you can think of.

No one, except perhaps you, wants a tinker that can only be Goblin and Gnome.

The problem with this argument is that if you google Warcraft or WoW Tinker all you’re going to get is pictures of Gnomes and Goblins using machines. There are no images of Blood Elf, Orc, KT, etc. Tinkers because they generally don’t exist. Tinker is generally a goblin/gnome thing. Thus, when people are voting for a Tinker class, they’re voting for Gazlowe in a claw pack.

That’s simply what the concept is.

We see this a lot in some asian MMOs where there are certain classes only available to a fringe race (lookin at TERA) that no one want to play, because they would have to play a race they dislike.

Demon Hunter works, because Elves are always popular. Evoker works, because Dragons are popular. Goblins and Gnomes are not popular.

Again, new classes are brought in to appeal to people currently not playing WoW. In fact, Blizzard may actually want to avoid a class that revolves around a popular race because it’ll cause further racial imbalances.

- - - Updated - - -

Arguing against something nobody said now so that you can be right about something?

Of course Evokers came from the draconic lore. But they were an entirely new creation Blizzard came up with to make that lore playable. There were no WC3 heroes to base them on (in fact, no WC3 presence at all), no abilities pulled from elsewhere. All they needed to create the class was an established setting. Even the irrelevant spinoff you're so fixated on only pulled from the same lore, and had very little overlap with what the WoW team came up with for Evokers.

There were HotS heroes to base them on though. They even largely based the hero trees on those heroes. Interesting how you ignore that fact.

Likewise, they absolutely can and should come up with a concept that represents the more varied technology that exists at this point. If you have to compare it to Evokers, then fixating on Goblins and Gnomes would be like fixating on Deathwing and insisting that it must be exactly like him and can't possibly include the other Dragonflight's powers.

A class based on the 5 Aspects could utilize that type of variation, because it was simple magic and spells. With a technology class you’re talking about race-based mechs, robots, turrets, devices, etc. Then if we’re talking Draenei tech, you’re talking about them needed their own ability animations, because it would look odd for Draenei to be shooting Goblin/Gnome rockets.

Sorry, I simply don’t see Blizzard putting in that level of investment. A more likely scenario is a highly limited number of races using unique models and having shared ability animations. In that scenario, artificers are simply left out, because they’re simply too different.

[Triceron]

It's a dragon expansion with a class using aspect powers. Obviously, alextrasza ties to that because there were no Evokers.

Weak argument.

By that measure what class can't be introduced? Anything can be connected to a major lore figure that we already know of. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

[Teriz]

Weak argument.

By that measure what class can't be introduced? Anything can be connected to a major lore figure that we already know of. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Example? It's quite clear that Evokers are heavily tied to the lore around the aspects and the dragonflights, even possessing their abilities and attributes.

[Triceron]

Example? Because it's quite clear that Evokers are heavily tied to the lore around the aspects and the dragonflights, even possessing their abilities and attributes.

Name any class, you can bridge a connection to a lore figure.

And they can even reimagine lote figures to better fit a new class connection. Look how they completely reinvented her look from a forest-themed Ranger to the emo-punk look she has in the Midnight key art. Instant connection to a potential Void themed class.

[Teriz]

Name any class, you can bridge a connection to a lore figure.

Like Bards? Easily attached to even a non ETC character like Alleria.

How? Where's the ability connection, and where is the ETC in lore?

[Triceron]

How? Where's the ability connection, and where is the ETC in lore?

Read what you quoted again

[Teriz]

Read what you quoted again

I did. ETC is not a true lore character. With that said, where is the ability connection between Alleria and Bards?