If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Ielenia]

Buff other players.

That's the purview of the Inscription profession.

Craft instruments as weapon transmogs.

Saying a bard is a crafting profession that makes instruments is saying an athlete is a crafting profession that makes the training equipment they use.

- - - Updated - - -

Further, no one is talking about gameplay. In lore there is a Tinker hero with attributes and abilities not found in the engineering profession. That is fact.

You say "no one is talking about gameplay" and that you're talking about lore... and yet you speak of nothing but gameplay there, when you say no abilities are found in the engineering profession.

Thank you for giving your opinion. Fortunately you don't speak for Blizzard.

And neither do you, yet you continue to insist you do when you claim that it's a fact we need a WC3 hero unit for WoW class design.

[Teriz]

It's not shown to be relevant because you haven't shown any evidence that this is nothing more than a correlation, a coincidence. It doesn't matter that all 3 classes so far had varying degrees of inspiration from Warcraft 3. It could also simply be a coincidence. To prove that WC3 is a mandatory requirement for class design... you need Blizzard saying so.

A coincidence that has happened 12 times since the release of the game at a rate of 100%? How many times does it take for it not to be a coincidence?

All three of them have lists of abilities not present in current classes. And no arcane or void ability would be "at home" in the warrior class. No void abilities would be "at home" in the mage class, either.

No, but they would be perfectly at home in the Priest class. Also going back through the abilities of the Riftblade, the only ability that doesn't work in the Warrior class is Arcane Charge. If you wish to base an entire class concept on a copy of Charge that takes on an arcane damage component, that's your business.

No, the Riftblade is clearly a class of its own, because warriors don't have arcane and void abilities. Also: "warlocks exist" did not preclude demon hunters. "Priests exist" did not preclude paladins. Etc, etc.

To be fair, the Riftblade doesn't have void abilities either. It only has Arcane Charge, which is Warrior Charge with Arcane damage tacked on.

In other words: you're moving goalposts, because you're now adding caveats that did not exist before.

Not even close.

Alright. That is mostly an assertion considering we see guards training in Theramore, and it doesn't look any different than what a warrior does to train.

Where exactly do we see hero class Warriors train?

They're still three separate themes.

No, they're three different types of Rogues. Assassins, Pirates, and Thieves are all considered Rogues in various contexts, so the theme is still singular, despite having different aspects.

Different types of priests, but priests nonetheless. Again: find me instances of your character being called by your spec (and I'll even add your own caveats) by important NPCs like Anduin, Sylvanas, Thrall, etc.

Why would they call you by your spec? Regardless of your spec, you're still of that class. Even if you're a Priest who worships N'Zoth, you're still a Priest.

And anyone can read that and understand that this is an expansion about the afterlife, not undeath. Meaning necromancy classes do not fit.

Anyone can read that and see the developer say that Shadowlands is the realm of death and the expansion's theme is death multiple times. Are we now seriously going to argue that a Necromancer class doesn't fit within a death thematic?

Your attempt at mockery only reflects poorly on you.

Your argument is so silly I have no choice...

No, it doesn't. Like I wrote in the beginning of this post: you repeatedly failed to prove that what you have here is nothing but correlation, a coincidence.

So again, since we're 12/12 for this "coincidence" at what point does it stop being a "coincidence" or a "correlation"? When it fits a class that you like?

- - - Updated - - -

You say "no one is talking about gameplay" and that you're talking about lore... and yet you speak of nothing but gameplay there, when you say no abilities are found in the engineering profession.

A class' abilities are part of its lore.

And neither do you, yet you continue to insist you do when you claim that it's a fact we need a WC3 hero unit for WoW class design.

I never said I spoke for Blizzard, I'm merely pointing out that the Tinker concept has the exact same pedigree as the other WoW expansion classes. For example, here are three of the three WoW expansion classes;



And here's the last 2 WC3 heroes who have no abilities in the class lineup (and they're both Goblins with tech abilities);



Just saying.....

[Mehrunes]

the people that have been wanting tinkers for years want the steampunk style stuff from goblins and Gnomes not the alien crap from Draenei.
the people who hate gnomes and goblins are the ones trying to push for more races using stuff that makes no sense.

Then play a hypothetical Gnome/Goblin Tinker... What does it matter to you if other Tinker races had different looks. Nothing is lost that way and instead there'd be added variety for people who want other aesthetic. Unless you don't want to play a Gnome/Goblin yourself and you just want to force that aesthetic on races that have nothing to do with it. Which isn't exactly a consistent position.

[Traveler Voltin]

Then play a hypothetical Gnome/Goblin Tinker... What does it matter to you if other Tinker races had different looks. Nothing is lost that way and instead there'd be added variety for people who want other aesthetic. Unless you don't want to play a Gnome/Goblin yourself and you just want to force that aesthetic on races that have nothing to do with it. Which isn't exactly a consistent position.

the party you are trying to reach has moved on from the circle jerk tinker conversation and is now waiting for people to explain what expansion theme for the class they want.

[TheRevenantHero]

Skill(s): Archery, Necromancy.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Dark_ranger

Black Arrow
Adds extra damage to attacks.
Units killed while under the effect of Black Arrow will turn into Dark Minions.
Dark Minions: https://wow.gamepedia.com/Dark_Minion

Life Drain
Absorbs the life essence of a target enemy unit by taking hit points from it every second and giving them to the Dark Ranger.

Warlocks could leech life energy and power their own magical abilities. it is one of the necromantic abilities warlocks share with necromancers.

You can't just call it shadow magic. Shadow magic is either necromancy, demonic or void. and it's not the other two.

There aren't male and female Withered. You're probably talking about Nightfallen. and, by the way, we did get Nightborne. Saying we would get Nightfallen or Fal'dorei is like saying we would get Ash Ghoul or Gargoyle (which, have male and female) instead of Venthyr. it's not a mere male and female case. they also have to be on a playable model standard - which, means that they can't have six legs or be in a bad health condition. they would have to be able to wear gear, be 2-legged, have face animations and possess a high fidelity rig structure and textures. Nagas have armor issues, are missing legs, can't ride mounts and are not as animated as a playable model would be. your problems with roleplaying is of no concern to the major player population.

There is quite literally not a single piece of lore that backs up that they use necromancy. Those articles typically require citations. There is no citation for that.

There absolutely ARE male and female models for the Withered. My points about male and female models stands. Venthyr would be a truly shit edition to playable races.

- - - Updated - - -

The Tinker class is the one concept that wouldn't be a cheap copy of other classes, yet you find it a "boring non-fantasy concept" that shouldn't be implemented.

Yeah, that makes sense....

You're right. Your concept would be a cheap copy of engineer

[Teriz]

You're right. Your concept would be a cheap copy of engineer

Except it's not my concept, it's Blizzard's concept.

[TheRevenantHero]

Except it's not my concept, it's Blizzard's concept.

It absolutely is NOT. Blizzard hasn't created a concept for tinker in WoW. Stop being dishonest about that fact. The tinker you constantly talk about is a concept you cobbled together from one hero unit, one character from HotS, and various engineering items that you refuse to acknowledge because they don't have the same names as the spells you list.

[Teriz]

It absolutely is NOT. Blizzard hasn't created a concept for tinker in WoW.

Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys, Razak's Roughriders....

Stop being dishonest about that fact. The tinker you constantly talk about is a concept you cobbled together from one hero unit, one character from HotS, and various engineering items that you refuse to acknowledge because they don't have the same names as the spells you list.

Nah, I simply applied the same method Blizzard utilized for Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters.

Also are we again pretending that items are the same thing as abilities?

[TheRevenantHero]

Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys, Razak's Roughriders....



Nah, I simply applied the same method Blizzard utilized for Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters.

Also are we again pretending that items are the same thing as abilities?

Those are faction groups, not classes. Nice try. And there is no pretending. If they do the same thing as the spells you're talking about then there isn't much of a difference aside from a mana cost. And you can apply whatever method you think you know. Saying that Blizzard has created a concept for tinker is an outright lie.

[Teriz]

Those are faction groups, not classes. Nice try. And there is no pretending.

You didn't say classes, you said "the Tinker concept in WoW".

If they do the same thing as the spells you're talking about then there isn't much of a difference aside from a mana cost. And you can apply whatever method you think you know. Saying that Blizzard has created a concept for tinker is an outright lie.

Except they don't, because they're items. Items have fundamentally different mechanics than abilities do.

[Swnem]

Why more classes would be bad? They are cheap copies of each other now so clearly there is almost 0 concerns about balance.

Anything but Tinker. Tinker is a boring non-fantasy concept that should stay in background forever.

I want any class but one you would like. Because that is what you do and i hope they add Tinker just to spite you.

AKA stop trash posting. It's not about what it shouldnt be, but what it should be.

[TheRevenantHero]

You didn't say classes, you said "the Tinker concept in WoW".



Except they don't, because they're items. Items have fundamentally different mechanics than abilities do.

Tinker concept doesn't exist in WoW. As it stands, it is nothing but a title with engineers filling the role with their gadgets. The only difference between items and spells is cooldowns and the fact that you can only have a certain number of that item. From a lore standpoint? There is NO difference.

[Teriz]

Tinker concept doesn't exist in WoW.

I've already shown that it does.

As it stands, it is nothing but a title with engineers filling the role with their gadgets.

You're free to believe that since you've decided to troll this discussion instead of actually participate in it, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still grossly incorrect.

The only difference between items and spells is cooldowns and the fact that you can only have a certain number of that item. From a lore standpoint? There is NO difference.

....and the fact that you can sell them, the fact that they don't scale with level, the fact that they don't interact with other abilities, the fact that they stop working on certain mobs, the fact that they can take up an armor spot, the fact that they don't have the same mechanics, the fact that some items are not usable with other items, etc.

[TheRevenantHero]

I've already shown that it does.



You're free to believe that since you've decided to troll this discussion instead of actually participate in it, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still grossly incorrect.



....and the fact that you can sell them, the fact that they don't scale with level, the fact that they don't interact with other abilities, the fact that they stop working on certain mobs, the fact that they can take up an armor spot, the fact that they don't have the same mechanics, the fact that some items are not usable with other items, etc.

You've shown what you THINK is a tinker. But officially, tinker is nothing but a title right now. As for your accusation, typical. You have no leg to stand on so you turn to personal attacks. I'm not trolling purely because you refuse to admit you're wrong. In WoW there is no tinker class. There is only engineers using a title like artificer. And for that last point, that's irrelevant. Game mechanics =/= lore. In the lore, engineers and tinkers are the exact same thing.

[Teriz]

You've shown what you THINK is a tinker. But officially, tinker is nothing but a title right now.

Well actually it's also a lore hero from WC3 (the source of all WoW classes), and Blizzard thought so much of this hero they also put it in HotS. Later, they placed those HotS abilities in WoW as a homage to that lore hero.

But yeah, nothing more than a title.....

As for your accusation, typical. You have no leg to stand on so you turn to personal attacks.

That accusation comes from you outright denying facts and continuously pushing nonsense because you simply don't like the facts being brought to you. For example, saying the Tinker is just a title and completely ignoring all the facts to the contrary. It's the equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ear and singing loudly as their parents try to get them to listen to reason.

I'm not trolling purely because you refuse to admit you're wrong. In WoW there is no tinker class. There is only engineers using a title like artificer. And for that last point, that's irrelevant. Game mechanics =/= lore. In the lore, engineers and tinkers are the exact same thing.

You do know that abilities are part of the lore right? For example, the Claw Pack is part of the lore of the Tinker concept, and that lore is canon. No different than Polymorph from Mage, Metamorphosis from Demon Hunters, or Summoning Infernal from Warlocks.

However, I'm sure you'll deny those facts as well, so I'm wasting my time...

[Ielenia]

A coincidence that has happened 12 times since the release of the game at a rate of 100%? How many times does it take for it not to be a coincidence?

Ah, so now you're adding the vanilla classes into the mix, too? Okay. Just remember that we have no warlock unit in Warcraft 3, hero or otherwise. And yes, it could also be a coincidence. That's how correlations without causation work. I mean, just look at these other examples of correlation without causation:

Here's the thing, though: I can throw a dice twelve times and get the number '6' all twelve times. Does that "prove as fact" that the dice I'm throwing can only give the number '6' as a result? No, it does not. I'll repeat: if you want to assert this as a fact, the only evidence that can confirm that is if Blizzard themselves come out and say it. I mean, look at these

No, but they would be perfectly at home in the Priest class. Also going back through the abilities of the Riftblade, the only ability that doesn't work in the Warrior class is Arcane Charge. If you wish to base an entire class concept on a copy of Charge that takes on an arcane damage component, that's your business.

So what? It's still evidence of a possible melee spec for a hypothetical void class. The NPC even has some abilities different from the warrior's.

To be fair, the Riftblade doesn't have void abilities either. It only has Arcane Charge, which is Warrior Charge with Arcane damage tacked on.

Sorry. I meant "Riftrunners". As in, the three NPCs, each represent a different spec of the hypothetical class.

Not even close.

Let's expose your lies. This was your entire paragraph:

Because the player's profession choice is never mentioned in lore. You're never referred to as [screen name] "Shaman Engineer" More than likely because it's optional for players.

Notice the complete lack of "by important NPCs" caveats, which you only added later to move the goalposts after you have been proven wrong.

Where exactly do we see hero class Warriors train?

Here, here and here.

No, they're three different types of Rogues.

It's still three vastly different themes being put together into a single class. Hell, the pirate theme was even changed to accommodate dual-wielding considering the overwhelming majority of pirates use a single sword.

Anyone can read that and see the developer say that Shadowlands is the realm of death and the expansion's theme is death multiple times. Are we now seriously going to argue that a Necromancer class doesn't fit within a death thematic?

Except it's not an undead thematic. It's an afterlife thematic, and the necromancer does not deal with the afterlife.

So again, since we're 12/12 for this "coincidence" at what point does it stop being a "coincidence" or a "correlation"? When it fits a class that you like?

It stops being a coincidence or correlation when we have confirmation from Blizzard. Simple as that. As I mentioned in the past. That's fine if you wish to claim the need for WC3 for a class concept to be realized into WoW to be a tendency. But it's nowhere near sufficient evidence to claim it as a mandatory requirement.

A class' abilities are part of its lore.

Not in the way you use the term. You use damage, cooldown and damage type as part of 'ability description'.

I never said I spoke for Blizzard,

I never said you said you did. I said you act like you do, by spouting unproven claims as facts without any confirmation from Blizzard about the veracity of your claim.

Also, I'm still waiting for your examples of how engineers and tinkers are so different in the lore to warrant both being completely separate concepts.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it's not my concept, it's Blizzard's concept.

There you go again acting like you speak for Blizzard.

It is 100% your concept, not Blizzard's. Because there is no playable tech class in WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys, Razak's Roughriders....

By that logic, any void class concept created by fans by basing them off the Riftrunners can claim that "it's not their concept. It's Blizzard's!"

[TheRevenantHero]

Well actually it's also a lore hero from WC3 (the source of all WoW classes), and Blizzard thought so much of this hero they also put it in HotS. Later, they placed those HotS abilities in WoW as a homage to that lore hero.

But yeah, nothing more than a title.....



That accusation comes from you outright denying facts and continuously pushing nonsense because you simply don't like the facts being brought to you. For example, saying the Tinker is just a title and completely ignoring all the facts to the contrary. It's the equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ear and singing loudly as their parents try to get them to listen to reason.



You do know that abilities are part of the lore right? For example, the Claw Pack is part of the lore of the Tinker concept, and that lore is canon. No different than Polymorph from Mage, Metamorphosis from Demon Hunters, or Summoning Infernal from Warlocks.

However, I'm sure you'll deny those facts as well, so I'm wasting my time...

No they are NOT a lore hero lmao. It was just a name for a unit in WC3. And also, the character in HotS isn't even called a tinker. So that disproves your little assumption. And no. What you described is what YOU have been doing in this entire thread. The fact that I'm not the only one making the point that there is absolutely nothing different between engineer and tinker shows that you're the one sticking their fingers in their ears. As for the claw pack, there is no lore for it. Just one item in game. That doesn't suddenly become important lore and certain doesn't separate them from engineer. Tinkers and engineers, from a lore standpoint, are the same thing.

[Teriz]

Ah, so now you're adding the vanilla classes into the mix, too? Okay. Just remember that we have no warlock unit in Warcraft 3, hero or otherwise.

Actually there were Warlock creeps (Eredar and Stormreaver), and the Warlock class pulled numerous abilities from multiple heroes, including Demonic ones like the Pit Lord, and Dread Lord, demonic related heroes like the Blood Mage and the Demon Hunter.

And yes, it could also be a coincidence. That's how correlations without causation work. I mean, just look at these other examples of correlation without causation:

Here's the thing, though: I can throw a dice twelve times and get the number '6' all twelve times. Does that "prove as fact" that the dice I'm throwing can only give the number '6' as a result? No, it does not. I'll repeat: if you want to assert this as a fact, the only evidence that can confirm that is if Blizzard themselves come out and say it. I mean, look at these

Except you're comparing throwing dice 12 times to a team of video game developers following the same formula over and over again over the course of 16 years.

You seriously don't see a difference?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.....

So what? It's still evidence of a possible melee spec for a hypothetical void class. The NPC even has some abilities different from the warrior's.

It has one ability different than the Warrior. The ability where they flip behind someone and hits them could work in the Warrior class.

Let's expose your lies. This was your entire paragraph:

Notice the complete lack of "by important NPCs" caveats, which you only added later to move the goalposts after you have been proven wrong.

I have no issue with mentions from unimportant NPCs, but you used a profession quest. People call you by your class in quests unrelated to your class. For example, that walk you took with Anduin in Stormwind when he was a child. He mentions your class and what he knows about it.

Here, here and here.

And that proves that standard Stormwind guards are the same as Warriors how exactly?

It's still three vastly different themes being put together into a single class. Hell, the pirate theme was even changed to accommodate dual-wielding considering the overwhelming majority of pirates use a single sword.

Again, it's not vastly different themes. Pirate, Assassin, Thief, Rogue can be interchangeable terms.

Except it's not an undead thematic. It's an afterlife thematic, and the necromancer does not deal with the afterlife.

No, it deals with death, and specializes in death magic. Shadowlands is the realm of death, and that is the theme of this expansion per Blizzard.

It stops being a coincidence or correlation when we have confirmation from Blizzard. Simple as that. As I mentioned in the past. That's fine if you wish to claim the need for WC3 for a class concept to be realized into WoW to be a tendency. But it's nowhere near sufficient evidence to claim it as a mandatory requirement.

Like I said, we're 12 for 12 with a class concept that has the exact same background as the previous 12. If you want to stick your head in the sand and say it's a coincidence, that's your prerogative.

- - - Updated - - -

No they are NOT a lore hero lmao.

Every WC3 hero is a lore hero within Warcraft. That includes WoW, since WC3 is canon lore for the Warcraft universe.

It was just a name for a unit in WC3. And also, the character in HotS isn't even called a tinker. So that disproves your little assumption.

Yeah, he just has abilities and attributes from the WC3 Tinker.....

And no. What you described is what YOU have been doing in this entire thread. The fact that I'm not the only one making the point that there is absolutely nothing different between engineer and tinker shows that you're the one sticking their fingers in their ears. As for the claw pack, there is no lore for it. Just one item in game. That doesn't suddenly become important lore and certain doesn't separate them from engineer. Tinkers and engineers, from a lore standpoint, are the same thing.

Again, the Claw Pack is directly mentioned in WC3's lore description of the Tinker hero. That makes it canon lore, and is another line of separation between it and the engineering profession, since it isn't available there (like all Tinker abilities).

I'm sorry if the facts bother you, but the facts are what they are.

[TheRevenantHero]

Actually there were Warlock creeps (Eredar and Stormreaver), and the Warlock class pulled numerous abilities from multiple heroes, including Demonic ones like the Pit Lord, and Dread Lord, demonic related heroes like the Blood Mage and the Demon Hunter.




Except you're comparing throwing dice 12 times to a team of video game developers following the same formula over and over again over the course of 16 years.

You seriously don't see a difference?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.....




It has one ability different than the Warrior. The ability where they flip behind someone and hits them could work in the Warrior class.




I have no issue with mentions from unimportant NPCs, but you used a profession quest. People call you by your class in quests unrelated to your class. For example, that walk you took with Anduin in Stormwind when he was a child. He mentions your class and what he knows about it.




And that proves that standard Stormwind guards are the same as Warriors how exactly?



Again, it's not vastly different themes. Pirate, Assassin, Thief, Rogue can be interchangeable terms.




No, it deals with death, and specializes in death magic. Shadowlands is the realm of death, and that is the theme of this expansion per Blizzard.




Like I said, we're 12 for 12 with a class concept that has the exact same background as the previous 12. If you want to stick your head in the sand and say it's a coincidence, that's your prerogative.

- - - Updated - - -



Every WC3 hero is a lore hero within Warcraft. That includes WoW, since WC3 is canon lore for the Warcraft universe.



Yeah, he just has abilities and attributes from the WC3 Tinker.....



Again, the Claw Pack is directly mentioned in WC3's lore description of the Tinker hero. That makes it canon lore, and is another line of separation between it and the engineering profession, since it isn't available there (like all Tinker abilities).

I'm sorry if the facts bother you, but the facts are what they are.

Every DK can't do what Arthas can do. Every hunter can't do what Sylvanas does, since dark rangers are just glorified hunters. Every hunter can't do what Rexxar does. Every monk can't do what Chen does. I don't need to go on.

But the point is, he's not called a tinker at all. Which means you can't call him a tinker for sure and that it's only you making assumptions as usual.

The item existing doesn't make it some incredible item that defines the lore of an entire class. That logic is utterly asinine. In the lore, tinkers and engineers are the same thing. Tinker is just another name for engineer in lore. This have been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES. These are not facts. It is you bending the lore and moving goalposts to fit your narrative and it's why this thread is at 50 pages. You outright refuse to accept anyone's point unless they 100% agree with you.

[Teriz]

Every DK can't do what Arthas can do. Every hunter can't do what Sylvanas does, since dark rangers are just glorified hunters. Every hunter can't do what Rexxar does. Every monk can't do what Chen does. I don't need to go on.

But Hunters, Monks, and DKs can all do what their WC3 hero counterparts could do.

But the point is, he's not called a tinker at all. Which means you can't call him a tinker for sure and that it's only you making assumptions as usual.

He doesn’t need to be. Gazlowe was the Tinker hero from WC3, and Gazlowe in HotS has some of the Tinkers abilities and features from WC3 like the claw pack.

The item existing doesn't make it some incredible item that defines the lore of an entire class. That logic is utterly asinine. In the lore, tinkers and engineers are the same thing. Tinker is just another name for engineer in lore. This have been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES. These are not facts. It is you bending the lore and moving goalposts to fit your narrative and it's why this thread is at 50 pages. You outright refuse to accept anyone's point unless they 100% agree with you.

The clawpack is not an item, it’s an attribute of the concept, and like I said, it’s a lore difference between the Tinker hero and the engineering profession. No different than Demon Hunters and their Warglaives and Blindfolds, Brewmasters and their Staves and brews, or Death Knights and their Runeblades and Death Chargers. This is yet another fact.