Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Hatecore]

The RPG isn't cannon lore chief.

Okay so None of the tinker lore is cannon.

On April 1, 2004 Blizzard Entertainment announced the goblin tinker as a new neutral hero, that would be available in the next patch.[2] A day later, Blizzard revealed that the tinker was merely an April Fools’ joke. However, the tinker became subject to many forum posts and petitions that wanted the tinker to be a playable hero.On April 14, Blizzard announced the tinker to be added in patch 1.15.

So the Tinker was a flat out joke and will never happen

http://www.wowwiki.com/Goblin_Tinker_(Warcraft_III)

[Tatzi]

http://wowhead.com/spell=53301

Explosive Shot.

http://wowhead.com/spell=77769

Trap Launcher (Notice the word launcher.)

http://wowhead.com/spell=13813

Explosive Trap

http://wowhead.com/spell=1543

Flare

http://wowhead.com/spell=19801

Tranquilizing Shot

These are the ones I would consider having to use technology to make work.

It matters a lot what weapons they will use. Who will be competing for gear with them?

[Hatecore]

Also

Tinker (engineering)

Engineering enchantments, also known as tinkers, are unique gear enchantments that may be used alongside regular enchantments.

http://wowpedia.org/Tinker_(engineering)

- - - Updated - - -

oh also

Goblins are mad inventors who produce useful gadgets despite their chaotic, crazed, and explosively-oriented mindsets. They are the ultimate tinkers, competing with gnomes to produce the best devices around. This competition is friendly or deadly, depending on the individuals involved — sometimes it's both.

Goblin tinkers differ from their gnome counterparts. Goblins enjoy instant gratification. They work on an invention until it sort of, kind of functions, then they move on to another one. They get a thrill when they finish something, even if "finishing" means that it works properly one out of ten times.

Goblin tinkers also have a penchant for destructive devices. They like blowing things up and tearing them down. Thus, goblins make rockets, bombs, shredders, flamethrowers and similar devices. Even their creations that aren't directly related to warfare and flagrant environmental abuse have a tendency to explode terrifically when they malfunction. Early goblin zeppelins, while quite stable, functioned by using open flames to warm flammable gas — not a combination to inspire confidence in passengers. Though goblin tinkers amuse many, they do so only at a distance; those nearby eye the tinker with expressions of mixed incredulity and fear.

The iconic goblin inventor grins madly through a leather cap and soot-covered goggles. Devices of all sorts are strapped across his body, many of which look broken. He brandishes… something… to threaten his opponents.[1]

Goblin tinkers can speak Common, Dwarven, Goblin, Low Common, and Orcish.[2]

http://www.wowwiki.com/Goblin_tinker

Taken from Dark Factions, 33, 179

Seems the only thing pointing towards tinkers is NON CANNON LORE FROM THE RPG, Warcraft 3 Aprils fools joke and Engineering.


Seems like Tinker = Engineer

lore wise

[Ielenia]

Hunters use bombs? Since when?

Explosive Trap and Explosive Shot

Tinkers use none if those things.

Tinkers don't use guns? So they're melee units, wielding swords, maces and axes? Don't you think that we have enough melee classes? And doesn't it go against your idea of the Tinker being a ranged class?

Link?

Trap Mastery, Explosive Shot

Yeah, none of that is based on tech.

Erm... they're traps. Mechanical gadgets. They are tech.

It doesn't really matter what weapon they would equip. Their attacks and abilities would come from the hammer tank.

Understand something: if a Tinker is made into a class, it will not have the 'tank' 24/7 sticking out of its back. It's way to whymsical. At best it'll be an offensive/defensive cooldown. Something like that sticking out of a character's back permanently would severly affect field of vision for the player, even if the camera is zoomed out to its max. If a 'Tinker' is implemented, it'll equip a weapon, wield a weapon, and attack with that weapon.

[Thimagryn]

Except Hunter pets aren't machines, and they don't throw bombs. Tinkers don't use traps, and if they follow the WC3 model, they won't even use guns.

So how do you go from that to saying Aspect of the Iron Hawk is Anti-magic themed and that it does everything a Demon Hunter does?

All this ignorance and hypocrisy is setting the bar low, even for your standards.

[Talen]

A Demon Hunter concept would have difficulties being implemented as a full class for the same reasons a Brewmaster would have. It's a stronger identity as a spec within a class that can properly represent it.

The analogy is flawed. We knew next to nothing about a Brewmaster.

Warlocks have that potential, but they are marred by having themes that contradict much of the original Warcraft 3 DH identity.

Only because you insist on a DH identity that has never existed, in game or in lore.

Metamorphosis remains the only true Demonic spell they all share.

And they can't have it.

You are dictating how Demon Hunters should be designed by siding their identity with a Demonic faction and with Demons in general.

No. I'm not.


I'm basing it on their depiction in WC3 where we see Demon Hunters use Demon Magic.
I'm basing it on their depiction in game where we see Demon Hunters use Demon Magic, work with Demons, become Demons.
I'm basing it on the on from the web site where we find out they gained their powers from a pact, where they mix magic and melee, where they are seen as fearsome warriors.
I'm basing it on the few quests we have in game which detail a little about their specific history and lore.


In short....I can drop the Illidari connection entirely and still leave the Design Space untouched to a large degree. We know other Demon Hunters work with Demons. We know other Demon Hunters use Demon Magics. We know other Demon Hunters become Demons. And so on.


You seem to think that all this is just based on the Illidari. It isn't. A lot of the design overlap comes from other sources.


More to the point, we know there is an overlap. And we know that good design practise ensures such overlaps are bad. Very bad. And we know WOW is set up so each class is unique in concept and theme so we know Blizzard is following and adhering to good design practise.


And because that is the case, the overlap - which Blizzard themselves have spotted and even commented upon - means that either it will suddenly follow bad design practise and adds it, or it wil continue to follow good design practise and won't.


One could argue that market forces, that class popularity would be great enough enough for Blizzard to forego that. And, while I suppose that is possible, it seems unlikely, especially because it has the option of exploiting the overlap and adding it in as a Warlock spec.


Which - in terms of class design - it already largely is.


This isn't me dictating how Demon Hunters should be designed.


This is me agreeing with an issue Blizzard themselves has pointed out, an issue which strikes at the very heart of the DH as a viable class option. This is a direct result not only of the way Demon Hunters have been added in game, but of the way they were added to WC3. Given Blizzards class structure, there was and is only ever going to be room for one class which embraces a Demon Theme in WOW...and warlocks were and are the more universal and flexible.


Which leaves two viable choices.


Blizzard isn't going to suddenly forget everything it knew about class design so a second class embracing the same theme or seed concepts as Warlocks isn't going to happen. Either there is no Demon Hunter class added, and Warlocks essentially just keep getting the role in everything but name, or Blizzard adds Demon Hunters as a spec to another class....mot likely Warlocks.

I ask you, why does this have to dictate the direction of a Player class? By suggesting that ALL demon hunters must summon demons because we've seen the Illidari do it is the same as suggesting ALL Shamans must use Toxic and Poison magic, because we've seen Kor'kron do it.

No. But seeing that SOME Demon Hunters tells us that this is a capability Demon Hunters have. It doesn't mean a DH spec needs to have Demons available to him and it is very possible that a Warlock DH subspec could be petless...just as Frost Mages have pets. What it is is another linkage, another point of similarity between Warlocks and Demon Hunters. Loramus worked with Demons. Altruis worked with Demons. The Illidari worked with Demons. Feronas idolises Illidan despite the fact he worked with Demons.


There is nothing in lore or canon which states Demon Hunters won't work with or make use of Demons. Indeed, the description we have of their pact suggests otherwise. As does just about every single Demon Hunter we see.


Must ALL Demon Hunters summon Demons? No. What lore, canon and the game show us is that they have the capability of doing so, and the ability to work with demons when it suits them.


You may want to fall back on the old argument that NPCs don't represent the player class. You can if you want but you keep missing the point here. Which is that the argument that DHs can't be implemented as a Warlock sub spec because they don't work with or summon Demons is an argument that is not supported by any existing canon or lore and even if it were, game design offers mechanics that would work around that.

IF we take that info. When addressing any NEW class, they can be developed by picking and choosing which elements to represent, and which to be changed.

Again, the Monk Class CHANGED Brewmaster origins. We all believed Brewmasters were from Pandaria

You might have. I didn't. We didn't have any lore about Brewmasters. All we knew was that Chen was a Pandaren who was a Brewmaster.


You keep doing this. You (and others) keep putting in your beliefs as fact. Even if everyone believed Brewmasters were from Pandaria, the lore never made that claim. All it claimed was the Pandaren Brewmasters were from the Pandaren Empire. Which is true.

You're absolutely ignoring the fact the Illidari are composed of Demons.

No. I'm not. I'm also not ignoring that other Demon Hunters worked with Demons and that Illidan is still venerated by at least one Demon Hunter despite the fact he works with Demons.


We have 10? 12? examples of Demon Hunters in game. One of them has a history where he didn't work with Demons...and he hero worships one who did.

Nothing is 'scrapped', everything is handpicked for inclusion in a new class. The end goal is to represent Demon Hunters, and this is possible with a new class.

Exactly - a new class. With a different name, look, theme, concepts, lore and looks. That's your Demon Hunter. Something with no similarity to the existing model we have now except they both like killing Demons.

Justice is not Vengeance. It is the separation between the definition of a Hero and an Anti-Hero.

Vengeance is a form of Justice. The righting of wrongs and the punishing of wrongdoers. It's often not lawful, but Justice it is.


That you have to split hairs bcause its "bad " Justice instead of "good" justice simply highlights the weakness of your case.


[quote]Same can be said of folding them into the Warlock class, which does not allow Night Elves.[q/uote]


Again...you peddle this myth that Blizzard cannot add class/race combos. Are you so hateful of the very idea that you have to come up with such pernickity issues? That NElfs cannot be Warlocks now does not mean that they can never be warlocks in the future. And if DHs were added as Warlocks, do you really think Blizzard would miss the opportunity to add that combo?

You can't simply open the class to Night Elves either, since they are strictly opposed to summoning Demons.

They were strictly opposed to Mages as well. We've had NElf Warlocks in game before. We've even ahd NElf Demon Hunetsr working with Demons before.


So....you point is noted, but the game and what Blizzard has done in the past show it to be false.

Sure you can. It's the name of a Spec that portrays the class, just as Brewmaster portrays Brewmasters for Monks.

No...you can't. The name itself comes with baggage. Simply by using the name, you would tie your Slayer class forever into the existing Demon Hunter class and its design space.




It's a type of magic, no different than Elemental magic or Natural magic. It is not a 'Demon' theme, as I've explained the Demon Hunter is not one dimensional as you seem to think they are.

Dark Embrace, which incorporates a heavily Meta themed mechanic that does not actually turn them into Demons. It changes their physical form with Fel Magic, causing them to take an appearance embodied by their inner nature. They 'Hulk' out. Every race gets their own form. I'd say it's a much more thematic mechanic for Demon Hunters of all races, considering they wouldn't all look like Night Elf Illidan.

Minor differences in names are not going to be enough to allow Blizzard to bypass the problems. Nor will each race get its own graphic...too much work for no gain.

Who says they are lightly armored? That they are dual Wielding meleers? Who that they even cast spells? You've been ignoring my Slayer concept and are attacking a strawman. None of what I have explained inhabits any of this nonsense.


Armor can be anything. The Roles can be anything. They do not cast magic, they manipulate it. They do not favour fighting Demons, Demon Hunter Spec specializes in using Fel magic. The identity I present is much more encompassing than your strawman attack of a 1-dimensional Warlock/Rogue hybrid.

I don't really care whether you call it casting or manipulating. And if you are droppign even the idea of a lightly armored DW meleer then you have zero linkage to the Demon Hunter.


As far as adding the DH into the game is concerned, the Slayer class is worthless. You cannot serriosuly think that you can bring in a new class that acts and loosk nothing like a Demon Hunter, that doesn't have its themes, concepts, or lore, that doesn't have its abilities, looks or heroes and players will say "That's a Demon Hunter"


No. They'll say "Nice class. Now when can I have Demon Hunters?"


EJL

[Teriz]

Okay so None of the tinker lore is cannon.

So the Tinker was a flat out joke and will never happen

http://www.wowwiki.com/Goblin_Tinker_(Warcraft_III)

Since the Tinker occurred in WC3, it is considered lore.

[Hatecore]

Since the Tinker occurred in WC3, it is considered lore.

was a Apirl fools joke.

Also is in wow.

Tinker (engineering)

Engineering enchantments, also known as tinkers, are unique gear enchantments that may be used alongside regular enchantments.

http://wowpedia.org/Tinker_(engineering)


Tinker is engineering lore wise


/THREAD

[Teriz]

http://wowhead.com/spell=53301

Explosive Shot.

See the Icon? Its a stick of dynamite strapped to an arrow. Real high tech....

http://wowhead.com/spell=77769

Trap Launcher (Notice the word launcher.)

Notice that Tinkers don't use traps.

http://wowhead.com/spell=13813

Flare

http://wowhead.com/spell=19801

Tranquilizing Shot


These are the ones I would consider having to use technology to make work.[/quote]

And you would be wrong.
Flare is Arcane magic, not technology.
Tranquilizing shot is nature magic, not physical. It removes magical effects.

Did you even read the abilities before you posted them?

[quote[It matters a lot what weapons they will use. Who will be competing for gear with them?[/QUOTE]

Except Tranquilizing Shot and Flare aren't weapons, and they're not tech. Additionally Tinkers don't use traps, or dynamite tied to arrows.

[Thimagryn]

No. They'll say "Nice class. Now when can I have Demon Hunters?"

Which is exactly what will be said of Warlocks if they get a 4th melee spec.

Demonology having Metamorphosis has changed no one's opinion about Demon Hunters being able to be their own class. Dark Apotheosis was even closer to that perception, yet has done nothing. Even if they make a full 4th spec melee opening to Night Elves using Warglaives, it will be a Warlock class through and through. That means they will summon demons, because that is a part of the core class that you can't take away. Every Warlock spec gets Demon pets, that's a CORE identity of the class. Taking that away for a spec is no different than doing everything you are chastising my concept for - disregarding the core class' theme and changing lore to satisfy a means.

The Demon Hunter should be represented by a class that can properly identify it, or not implemented at all. Adding them to Warlocks would be little different than adding the Paladin identity to the Priest. You even admit that Justice is not a strong enough theme considering anyone can act on Justice. Yet the fact that Priests use Shadow magic is itself an antithesis to the Paladin's core theme. Just as Demon Summoning is to the Warcraft 3-centric identity of Demon Hunters.

[Hatecore]

Tinkers don't use traps, or dynamite tied to arrows.

*citation needed

[Teriz]

was a Apirl fools joke.

So were the Pandaren.

Tinker (engineering)

Engineering enchantments, also known as tinkers, are unique gear enchantments that may be used alongside regular enchantments.

http://wowpedia.org/Tinker_(engineering)


Tinker is engineering lore wise


/THREAD

Too bad we're talking about this;

http://wowpedia.org/Goblin_Tinker_(Warcraft_III)

- - - Updated - - -

*citation needed

http://www.heroesnexus.com/heroes/5-gazlowe
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml

[Tatzi]

Oh, I see your point. So explosive shot in a gun is still firing an arrow with dynamite. #logic

[Talen]

Which is exactly what will be said of Warlocks if they get a 4th melee spec.

It'll be a class which has the same theme, class concepts, moves, abilities, looks and it'll be called Demon Hunter because all the baggage that prevents your Demon Slayer taking that name doesn't pose a problem in this case.

If they ask, we can point and say "there".

That would mean completely spitting and stomping on both Demon Hunter and Night Elf lore.

Highborne Mages.

The reason those two races cannot be rogues is because they have hooves instead of feet, and they don't use anything on their hooves. Hooves are not made to walk silently.

And yet both gain stealth via Hunters camoflague. The real reason is because Blizzard wants to maintain some meaningful class distinction between races.

You cannot argue Demon Hunters and Warlocks are the same thing while accepting Priests and Paladins are their own separate classes. It's almost hypocrisy. Priests and Paladins share the whole of protective Holy magic, the same with shadow magic for Warlocks and Demon Hunters.

Yes. They share a school of magic.


You want to know why they are different? Becaue Paladins and Priests have different design spaces. Because they have unique themes, concepts and identities. Because a shared school of magic isn't enough to affect that.


You want to know what DHs and Warlocks are effectively the same? Because where the Paladins and Priests have different themes, the DH and Warlocks share "Demons". Where Paladins and Priests have different concepts, Demon Hunters and Warlocks Share "power from Darkness". In fact, while just about everything between the Paladins and priest design space, from looks to lore to them to concept to gampelay is different, everything about the DH and Warlcok design space is shared.


And you simply repeating the mantra "Paladins and Priests are the same" doesn't make that falsehood true. At best, you are simply highlighting your ignorance of what a actual design space actually is.

Except we have Paladins and Priests, and their existence is proof that making a Demon Hunter separate from Warlocks is possible.

Except while it is very possible to separate Oranges from Apples, it is very difficult to separate Apple from Apples.

Except we're not talking 'how the class system works', we're talking class identity. If Priests and Paladins can exist separate from each other, then so can Warlocks and Demon Hunters.

Yes... because two classes with separte identites are just the same as two classes with the same one.

Warlocks and Demon Hunters are just as different as Priests and Paladins.

Same concept/themes/looks/abiliites/lore on the one hand vs different concept/themes/looks/abiliites/lore on the other.


Here's the thing. You are wrong about this. You need to look at the entirety of the design space. Every single part of it.The only area where the DH has a chance to make its own identity separate from Warlocks is gameplay. And even there, there is overlap.

And they'd be wrong.

I can see you are having trouble recognising that Justice does not necessarily involve the law.

Besides, even the Horde has laws. After all, they have a Warchief.

As I said, it isn't about the "Law". It's about Justice. Righting wrongs and exacting punishment.

"Justice on their terms" is not justice. It's simply revenge, plain and simple.

As I said...you have a real problem separating Justice from Law. And yes....revenge and retribution would also be part of the Paladins theme


EJL

[Teriz]

Oh, I see your point. So explosive shot in a gun is still firing an arrow with dynamite. #logic

Yep. Which is why all Hunter icons are arrows instead of bullets.#videogame

[Hatecore]

So were the Pandaren and the Brewmaster.

Both had cannon lore unlike the Tinker

Too bad we're talking about this;

http://wowpedia.org/Goblin_Tinker_(Warcraft_III)

AKA Goblin Engineer lore wise.

http://www.heroesnexus.com/heroes/5-gazlowe
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml

Pocket Factory
Cluster Rockets
Engineering Upgrade
Robo-Goblin (Ultimate)
Demolish (Passive)

Rock-It! Turret
Deth Lazor
EXplodium Charge
Robo-Goblin
Grav-O-Bomb 3000

But wait spoiler http://www.heroesnexus.com/heroes/5-gazlowe is http://www.wowhead.com/npc=3391/gazlowe all ready in game!

After the Third War, he was hired by Thrall as the chief engineer to help securing a reliable source of water for the newly constructed Orgrimmar city.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Gazlowe


Tinker is engineering lore wise proven again

Amazing the HOTS Tinker is a engineer lore wise named Gazlowe

[Ielenia]

Since the Tinker occurred in WC3, it is considered lore.

It is not considered lore because he never showed up in any of the story campaigns of WC3 and its expansion.

[Hatecore]

It is not considered lore because he never showed up in any of the story campaigns of WC3 and its expansion.

and the HOTS Tinker is a engineer Gazlowe

[Teriz]

Both had cannon lore unlike the Tinker

Gazlowe is a Tinker. He had a part in WC3's cannon lore.

AKA Goblin Engineer lore wise.

Which has nothing to do with the profession gameplay wise.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Gazlowe


Tinker is engineering lore wise proven again

Which again has nothing to do with the profession gameplay wise.

[Tatzi]

Okay, so explosive shot shoots arrows no matter what. And Scatter Shot is always rocks, no matter what. I guess that means Concussive Shot is a bunch of swirlies. And Multi-Shot is actually glaives.

I mean, the icon says so.