A Simple Argument for the Tinker Class

[Ielenia]

Can I ask then - What is your interpretation of the lore definition between a Class and a Profession.

Honestly? I don't think there is a difference, between the two. A "character class", being an adventurer, is nothing more than another profession, a job. One that can potentially yield much greater rewards than, say, being a blacksmith or an alchemist, but one that also carries a much greater risk of death. Potentially by gruesome means, sometimes by very embarrassing means.

In short, I believe the distinction between a 'character class' and 'character profession' is purely a gameplay distinction, and one is only not as developed as the other, because the game focuses more on the journey, the action, rather than the intricacies of mithril smithing, or vast possibilities of lotus leaves usage in potion-making.

[Thimagryn]

Honestly? I don't think there is a difference, between the two. A "character class", being an adventurer, is nothing more than another profession, a job. One that can potentially yield much greater rewards than, say, being a blacksmith or an alchemist, but one that also carries a much greater risk of death. Potentially by gruesome means, sometimes by very embarrassing means.

In short, I believe the distinction between a 'character class' and 'character profession' is purely a gameplay distinction, and one is only not as developed as the other, because the game focuses more on the journey, the action, rather than the intricacies of mithril smithing, or vast possibilities of lotus leaves usage in potion-making.

I think that's the core issue then. Tinkers, in the context of class discussion, exist purely as a gameplay distinction. Lorewise, there is no way to separate them from Engineers until they get formal backstories that render them canonically different.

But as a point of plausibility, there is always potential for Tinkers to be differentiated from Engineers. While in Warcraft we only have one type of Arcane Magic user in the form of the Mage, a system like DnD has separate identities between a Wizard and a Sorcerer. While both types are magic users, a Wizard studies and practices magic while a Sorcerer is innately gifted in the magical arts. While this might not immediately translate perfectly into World of Warcraft, bear with me this example.

My lore interpretation of a Class and Profession involves knowing what their purposes are. A Class is term for an Adventurer, someone who uses their skills and improves upon them through experience. They can train their skills or learn them through experimentation, but it is all learned through Experience. An example would be a Druid that reaches a certain aptitude is able to learn how to cast Regrowth. He can improve the potency of Regrowth by gaining even more experience and 'leveling up'. Furthermore, obtaining powerful artifacts and talents can greatly improve their mastery of Regrowth and other nature spells.

A Profession is a term for a set of skills that supplement Adventuring, but by no means dominates the Adventurer's core identity. They can train their skills or learn through experimentation as well, but they never improve with experience. They can rank up their skills and learn to craft better items and cast stronger enchants, but it never scales with their own skill level. This can be explained it's because Professionals follow a strict guideline of rules that yield the same results, thus never growing in potential; only gaining the ability to learn better abilities. An example of this is a Blacksmith making armor; he can craft the same armor piece a thousand times and it will never be stronger than before. A blacksmith can learn to make different version that's stronger, but his skills in mastering that one type of armor never improves. He follows the patterns he is given. Lorewise, an Adventurer's Profession never evolves by itself, only the techniques that are formally passed down from Trainers to their Apprentices. When we see a character like Mekkatorque or Gazlowe, technically they should not be 'Engineers' because that would only be addressing them by their professions. Even though Magni Bronzebeard forged the Ashbringer, he isn't identified by his Blacksmithing profession choice. The theme of Technology should not be defined by Engineering, rather it is simply one aspect of Technology.

When we look back at an Engineer and a Tinker, the core theme of both can be the same but the lore differentiation is as subtle as that between a Wizard and a Sorcerer. An Engineer follows plans and never invents his own creations. This explains every Adventurer who is an engineer, all players learn to craft their shit through Trainers or following Blueprints. A Tinker, in lore, is one that can adapt his weaponry to be more powerful with each 'level' he gains. This explains why their use of bombs would grow in power every level while a Warrior with Engineering will always do the same amount of bomb damage until he learns to craft a better bomb.

A part of this is carried through in lore for our own Artifacts. No matter how good of a Blacksmith you are, even if you can craft Epic weapons, you will never be able to craft Legendaries. Legendaries defined by the classes who wield them. A Blacksmith can't use Artifact knowledge to make their weapons better, but a Paladin can use theirs to imbue a better Ashbringer. Any overlapping themes become irrelevant, considering a Death Knight who doesn't have Blacksmithing knowledge still has the know-how to forge the legendary Shadowmourne. The difference is in the application of skill and aptitude, not the themes.

In the end, the lore behind a Tinker doesn't have to explain how he gathers all the materials to make his gear. That's a gameplay element, not lore. The lore is that he has the ability to increase his skill through experience. Once this is established, everything else falls into place on how or why he can use infinite amount of bombs or infinite amount of gunpowder. Like Hunters not requiring arrows, we can assume that the Tinker has adapted his experience to his tech to the point where he doesn't even need raw materials. He's that good. If he goes back to following blueprints for his Engineering to make a very specific type of bomb then he will need to get those materials. We don't need to question why a Warrior can infinitely Shattering Throw while a Blacksmith needs to mine ore to make one sword.

[Kolvarg]

"Jokes" like...?

I already gave an example, which you even replied to with your own joke. Stop playing dumb please. No point trying to have an interesting conversation if you're not gonna take it seriously.

Actually, I call it a gameplay representative of lore.

What what exactly is your criteria to distinguish "gameplay representative of lore" from "gameplay concessions"? Your whole logic seems to rely on your opinion and perception.

Which is something you have to prove exist, not the other way around.

You're not even trying to have a conversation anymore, are you?

I can't prove that there is no evidence. You could potentially prove that there is not enough tehcnology (Your claim.) if it was true. But you haven't, and you won't, because you can't. It's just an assumption that you are taking as fact because that's what you "feel" is right.

And you'd be wrong, because it's basically the same town, just reduced to basics of a medieval fantasy town: an inn, a few vendors, an armory/blacksmith. Were to make the in-game city grow enough to hold 7000 "native NPCs", other than its size, the town wouldn't change much, if any.

WoW is high fantasy, not medieval fantasy.

What world do you live in where "basically the same" means "the same". The game does not represent the world and unvierse accurately. Period. You said it yourself:

Please don't be dishonest and "mistake" gameplay concessions for in-game lore. Or are you actually going to make a case that our characters go around, in the lore, carrying five gigantic backpacks, that unique weapons like the Doomhammer and Ashbringer have, somehow, suddenly multiplied into hundreds of weapons, and despite only having two gryphons in the roost at the flight point, an infinite number or people can get a gryphon without having to wait for any to return? Oh, and that people don't need to drink water or eat food to survive?

'Nuff said.

You're reaching new lows. At least try to read what you're quoting.

"No, it wasn't me who made the claims."

I didn't say I didn't made any claims. I was referring to specific claims (in this case, the initial claims which originated the discussion. Any claim I made after that was in response to yours).

I made an argument based on perceived evidence. You just do not see "complex machinery" sold almost nowhere in the game, yet you see basic swords and armor sold almost anywhere. There is a constant feel and ambiance of zero-tech in the majority of settlements throughout the game, except the ones made by gnomes or goblins. In goblin- or gnome-heavy areas, technology is commonly seen, though. However, if you want to claim that technology is common and widespread, you need to show evidence of such, because all signs we see don't align with your claim.

And I think your perception is wrong. And every time I questioned your perception and presented paralell evidence that contradicts your perception, you gloss over the evidence and make another claim/statement once again based on your perception and "feel".

You keep saying "complex machinery", but you don't actually explain what you mean by it. You don't see "complex machinery" being sold because there's no one buying it as there's no Tinkers as a class yet. "Basic" swords and armor are useless for adventurers like us, you don't see artifacts, legendary or epic gear being sold anywhere, and yet that's what we actually use to fight, not the white pieces that are commonly available.

The Warcraft world is not medieval. It's not zero-tech. It never was. The last expansion revolved almost entirely around an old-world orc army equipped to the teeth with war technology and machinery.

Goblins even have tech-related abilities by default.

You have yet to explain how the tinker would get his tech, considering that all characters (save for hero classes), start as a common, poor schmuck. Even Goblins, that start rich, lose all their money around halfway the journey through their starting zone.

Who says tinker wouldn't be a hero class? You don't start naked either. Swords and armor, even in a world where they are very abundant, still cost something, and you have nothing.

Boo. You know that warmachines aren't exactly representative of how technology is "common and widespread" among the populace. Of course you'd see machines in war zones. What pay for those machines are the royal coffers, that (technically) have much, much more gold than the average citizen.

I never said it is common and widespread among the populace. I claimed that you have no evidence that it's not common enough for some adventurers to use it in combat.

Geez.

Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?
A: No.

No, because they "were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience", just like WoW is created to provide an engaging MMORPG experience, not to faithfully represent the Warcraft universe.

But great. Now you just need to show me the quotes that state all in-game flavor text, error messages, NPCs, stores, supplies, etc are canon and representative of the universe.

Every armory and blacksmith NPC vendor had bullets and arrows to sell. And since Blizzard removed arrows and bullets, they also removed them from the engineering profession, but using a third-party WotLK database, you can find out that, to make A THOUSAND arrows, you just needed two simple 'crystallized shadow', which were one-tenth of an Eternal Shadow. So, with so little, you can make so many specialized arrows, you can see where the idea that they're "cheap" and "common" come from, right?

Alright. Let's imagine we have 100 hunters who go raid or quest. Let's imagine they shoot 1 piece of ammo per second. In 10 seconds, your "THOUSAND" arrows are gone. And you still didn't explain where the gunpowder comes from. Bullets by themselves don't do much.

And btw, you just explained a good-enough supply of arrows with "magic". Who says magic can't create explosives?

You see, you continuously go back and forth on what is allowed or not allowed to be shown as evidence. You tell me that "every armory and blacksmith NPC vendor having bullets and arrows to sell" proves they are easy to come by, but when I use in-game evidence you dismiss it as "gameplay concessions". It's not a concession only when it helps you convince yourself you're right.

Honestly, don't think there's much point insisting much more on this anymore. While I maintain that even if you are right, that is in no way impeditive of the addition of Tinker Class to the game, I do believe you actually have an interesting idea/points that can be interesting to discuss and think about for someone who enjoys the game and universe. But the way you've been going about it is in my opinion absolutely atrocious.

Obviously I know I am not perfect either, I'm sure I said plenty bullshit and would probably be able to phrase it a lot better and more logically. But at this point I don't think the way you are approaching this conversation will let it further develop anymore, especially not without further repeating myself. So I'll thank you for the chat and bid farewell for now

[Ielenia]

An Engineer follows plans and never invents his own creations.

You had me up until this point. Saying that an engineer "never makes their own creations" and "always follow plans" is, in my opinion, disingenuous. And for two reasons: first, Engineering does have 'discoveries'. I believe the majority of the 'tinker' enchants, plus some other stuff, are "discovered" while making other stuff. Second, professions don't have 'unique creations'. All alchemists can learn all recipes there are, all blacksmiths can learn all the plans there are, all enginners can learn all the schematics there are. There aren't items that only one character can make, and no one else (i.e. "their own creations"), and that is because of a gameplay limitation.

[Kolvarg]

*snip*

Better put together than I could ever hope to do myself, great read

[Thimagryn]

You had me up until this point. Saying that an engineer "never makes their own creations" and "always follow plans" is, in my opinion, disingenuous. And for two reasons: first, Engineering does have 'discoveries'. I believe the majority of the 'tinker' enchants, plus some other stuff, are "discovered" while making other stuff. Second, professions don't have 'unique creations'. All alchemists can learn all recipes there are, all blacksmiths can learn all the plans there are, all enginners can learn all the schematics there are. There aren't items that only one character can make, and no one else (i.e. "their own creations"), and that is because of a gameplay limitation.

Discoveries are not inventions though. The lore behind this, for example, could be that they come upon an ancient blueprint left by the Titans. You need to be a high level Engineer to understand this, but by no means did you come up with the idea yourself. A Tinker will never be able to craft this ancient blueprint unless they formally undergo through Engineering training. Tinkers are skilled at adapting their own technology, not the ability to follow the instructions of all types of tech. Make sense?

In my own interpretation, all professions share the same formulas and crafts. Even if two Alchemists come upon the ability to create a 'Nightblood potion' through their own research, both the Alchemists end up using the same standard formula that all Alchemists can learn, ie 3 Night Roses and 2 Weeping Blood. The lore for research is that one tried adding Night Rose powder to a Weeping Blood solution, while a different alchemist learned by adding Weeping Blood to Night Rose powder. Inscriptionists/Scribes come up with the exact same set of glyphs, even if they learned it all in a different order. The formulas they use and the crafted results are always the same, down to the very bottles they use.

A formally trained, a Human Paladin using Holy Light might be doing so in a different style than a Tauren using Holy Light. This is already supported in lore. The spell 'Holy Light' is a generic term for a broad application of Light-based single target heals, which can differ from race to race or even from individuals who practice it differently. Class lore is broad enough to allow distinctions, so that an Outlaw Rogue can be applied to a Pirate type character or a Highwayman who likes to gamble. A Dragonscale Leatherworker isn't any different than any other Dragonscale Leatherworker; that is their profession. We've never had any lore that suggests any profession's craft is unique or different from anyone else's. I think this is a strong distinction that we should consider.

[Ielenia]

I already gave an example, which you even replied to with your own joke. Stop playing dumb please. No point trying to have an interesting conversation if you're not gonna take it seriously.

"Jokes" are lore too, and no, a joke doesn't dilute the "definition of lore", at all.

What what exactly is your criteria to distinguish "gameplay representative of lore" from "gameplay concessions"? Your whole logic seems to rely on your opinion and perception.

A "gameplay representative of lore" is when the gameplay reflects the lore. A "gameplay restriction" is when gameplay goes against the lore.

You're not even trying to have a conversation anymore, are you?

I can't prove that there is no evidence. You could potentially prove that there is not enough tehcnology (Your claim.) if it was true. But you haven't, and you won't, because you can't. It's just an assumption that you are taking as fact because that's what you "feel" is right.

You are the one claiming that technology is not uncommon, despite all evidence on the contrary, so it's you who have to present your evidence that it is ever-present, even in small settlements like Goldshire.

WoW is high fantasy, not medieval fantasy.

You... do know that both terms are not mutually exclusive, right?

You're reaching new lows. At least try to read what you're quoting.

"No, it wasn't me who made the claims."

I didn't say I didn't made any claims. I was referring to specific claims (in this case, the initial claims which originated the discussion. Any claim I made after that was in response to yours).

Actually:

Hard to when you constantly skip over what I say and mix completly different things I said. I never said "you cannot prove there is no technology in the in-game representation of Goldshire, therefore technology is common.". Not in those words, not in any other words. Feel free to quote me and prove me wrong.

Saying "you cannot prove there is no technology in the in-game representation of Goldshire, therefore technology is common" sounds quite similar to "I am making the claim that there is no evidence that technology is uncommon", doesn't it?

And I think your perception is wrong. And every time I questioned your perception and presented paralell evidence that contradicts your perception, you gloss over the evidence and make another claim/statement once again based on your perception and "feel".

You question my perception, yet you compares the rules of a high fantasy medieval game to the real world. By definition, the rules of the two tend to not match more than they match. Also, anywhere you look in most of the non-goblin and non-gnome settlements you see nothing high-tech. At most you see something very low-tech like a windmill. For high-tech to be commonplace, there is the expectancy of evidence, yet we find none.

Who says tinker wouldn't be a hero class?

Why should they? DKs have the reasoning that you were already a hero of your faction, who died fighting the scourge, then revived by the Lich King and given new powers. Demon Hunters are already seasoned hunters who were sent on a special mission by Illidan, but got captured on their return to the Black Temple.

I claimed that you have no evidence that it's not common enough for some adventurers to use it in combat.

And where is the evidence of that claim, considering we see no technology everywhere we look? Those warmachines don't belong to us, adventurers, they belong to the Horde's or Alliance's or whatever faction's armies commissioned them.

No, because they "were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience", just like WoW is created to provide an engaging MMORPG experience, not to faithfully represent the Warcraft universe.

You do know that Blizzard didn't make the RPG books? They were made, and published, by other companies. Blizzard had some input to a great deal of what's in the books, but they did give the other companies free reign of what to do in the RPG lore, which is one of the big reasons RPG books are, by rule, not canon to the Warcraft franchise.

But great. Now you just need to show me the quotes that state all in-game flavor text ... are canon and representative of the universe.

Actually, this is your job. You are the one claiming they're not, solely on the basis that you don't like what some of them say, so you have to prove they're not representative of lore.

Alright. Let's imagine we have 100 hunters who go raid or quest. Let's imagine they shoot 1 piece of ammo per second. In 10 seconds, your "THOUSAND" arrows are gone. And you still didn't explain where the gunpowder comes from. Bullets by themselves don't do much.

You can only have up to 40 people in a raid group, and I think raid instances only go up to 30, now. 20 if you're talking mythic. And even then, filling up all with hunters won't make it a long-lasting raid.

And btw, you just explained a good-enough supply of arrows with "magic". Who says magic can't create explosives?

I never said it was made "with magic". Engineering makes the arrows. Also, on the same token, Engineering makes 1000 bullets with two pieces of Crystallized Earth.

You see, you continuously go back and forth on what is allowed or not allowed to be shown as evidence. You tell me that "every armory and blacksmith NPC vendor having bullets and arrows to sell" proves they are easy to come by, but when I use in-game evidence you dismiss it as "gameplay concessions". It's not a concession only when it helps you convince yourself you're right.

Funny how you describe so vaguely what I supposedly dismissed. Why don't you say exactly what I dismissed?

- - - Updated - - -

Discoveries are not inventions though. The lore behind this, for example, could be that they come upon an ancient blueprint left by the Titans. You need to be a high level Engineer to understand this, but by no means did you come up with the idea yourself. A Tinker will never be able to craft this ancient blueprint unless they formally undergo through Engineering training. Tinkers are skilled at adapting their own technology, not the ability to follow the instructions of all types of tech. Make sense?

... No. No, it doesn't. You're basically saying that tinker knows how to create and upgrade machines... but he doesn't know how to create and upgrade machines? See how it doesn't make sense? Also, two problems with that Titan blueprint idea: first, titan technology is, as far as I know, vastly unintelligible to the Azerothian races. Meaning, goblins and gnomes are still studying it and making little progress in understanding how it works. Second: on most occasions, an engineer is at a city, town or settlement when creating their machines and gadgets, so the idea that a Titan blueprint would suddenly appear before them out of nowhere sounds a bit... far-fetched.

In my own interpretation, all professions share the same formulas and crafts. Even if two Alchemists come upon the ability to create a 'Nightblood potion' through their own research, both the Alchemists end up using the same standard formula that all Alchemists can learn, ie 3 Night Roses and 2 Weeping Blood. The lore for research is that one tried adding Night Rose powder to a Weeping Blood solution, while a different alchemist learned by adding Weeping Blood to Night Rose powder. Inscriptionists/Scribes come up with the exact same set of glyphs, even if they learned it all in a different order. The formulas they use and the crafted results are always the same, down to the very bottles they use.

Of course all professions would learn the same recipes/designs/plans/schematics. The alternative is a logistical impossibility: allowing players to create their own unique items through professions. The best that could be done is that the player decides which and how many herbs and/or catalysts use in a given potion to get "custom" effects, but even then, all players would draw from the same limited of what X amount of herbs would do with Y amount of catalysts.

A formally trained, a Human Paladin using Holy Light might be doing so in a different style than a Tauren using Holy Light. This is already supported in lore.

And yet... visually, they're the same, and even have the same name for abilities, save some rare exceptions, right?

The spell 'Holy Light' is a generic term for a broad application of Light-based single target heals, which can differ from race to race or even from individuals who practice it differently.

And that cannot be applied to professions... why, again? Why can't we say that alchemist X's potions taste like strawberry juice, while alchemist Y's flasks have more zesty taste, yet they all have such similar effect that they are branded, game-wise, under the same item?

[Thimagryn]

... No. No, it doesn't. You're basically saying that tinker knows how to create and upgrade machines... but he doesn't know how to create and upgrade machines? See how it doesn't make sense? Also, two problems with that Titan blueprint idea: first, titan technology is, as far as I know, vastly unintelligible to the Azerothian races. Meaning, goblins and gnomes are still studying it and making little progress in understanding how it works. Second: on most occasions, an engineer is at a city, town or settlement when creating their machines and gadgets, so the idea that a Titan blueprint would suddenly appear before them out of nowhere sounds a bit... far-fetched.

Technically, anyone can learn anything. But if you want to apply lore to why X is different than Y, then you need to apply some suspension of disbelief. If you can't, then you run into all sorts of lore conflicts, like 'Every Warlock is a Mage or Shaman'. Which is true in lore, every Warlock we know was either a Mage or a Shaman at one point. None of them became Warlocks without having some sort of former knowledge of magic.

Let's focus on the terminology then. Engineers have Discoveries. What is a discovery? Is it an Invention? No. You can discover something you didn't know before, hell something no one else has seen before, but you did not create or come up with that idea. When you discover a new planet, you did not craft that planet; you came upon it and gave it purpose. Essentially the difference between a Discovery and an Invention is that the Discovery is not unique to you.

On the other hand, can you provide any lore where Engineers invent anything? I would believe the idea that Engineers can invent stuff is purely headcanon, and not substantiated in any lore so far.

Of course all professions would learn the same recipes/designs/plans/schematics. The alternative is a logistical impossibility

That's not lore. My point still stands - Two alchemists researching separately come to the same formula and crafted result. Two Paladins learning to use Holy Light do so in their own style; a Human fills himself with his faith in the Holy Light while a Tauren draws strength from the Sun God, Anshe.

You can't use 'lack of graphics' as an excuse to lore. If Blizzard wanted Night Elf Alchemists to be different from Troll Alchemists, we would have seen an example by now. Yet it's crystal clear that they don't want that to happen, because Professions are race/gender/class neutral and standardized. Professions don't get uniqueness not because we lack the development time, but because (even in lore) it's intentionally designed to be standardized. Whether you are a gnome or a Panda, if you train to learn how to read the blueprints and have the right resources, you can both craft the exact same Sky Golem mount.

And that cannot be applied to professions... why, again? Why can't we say that alchemist X's potions taste like strawberry juice, while alchemist Y's flasks have more zesty taste, yet they all have such similar effect that they are branded, game-wise, under the same item?

Because that's headcanon, not lore. If you're bringing headcanon into this, then you must admit to bringing fictional, non-lore arguments against Tinkers.

If Engineering Lore is your reason that Tinkers can't exist, then I expect you to abide to the standards of which the game has outlined. If you are making an argument that creativity can be applied to professions, then give me proof of where an Alchemist's X potion tastes like strawberry juice where Alchemist Y's has a zesty flavour. Chances are, you won't find it, because Blizzard has been VERY SPECIFIC to word and guide all professions to the same -anyone can learn, everyone does it the same way- standard. To my understanding there has not been any instance where any profession lore has shown any element of uniqueness.

I have absolutely no problems with you interpreting professions as having a creative element. The issue I point out is that you're blurring the lines between a Class and a Profession, and because of that, I must make an example of a clear distinction; in this case a Profession's lack of creativity, to illustrate how they aren't the same thing. This is especially the case when your reasoning is based heavily on lore. If you can't understand the difference between a Technology Class and a Technology Profession through lore, then what I've done is draw the line for you. Keep in mind that this is not a fact that professions aren't creative. What I'm doing is providing you undisputed (not undeniable) proof that there is a clear distinction between a Class and a Profession.

It's by this understanding of what a class is and what a profession is that you can begin to understand the differences between an Engineer and a potential Tinker, without removing one for the sake of the other. What I think is that your interpretation of an Engineer (and any profession) is greater than it should be, and that's why you argue that the Tinker has no room to fit. The issue isn't an overlap of theme, rather the idea that Professions are equivalent of Classes.

[-Joker-]

I'm really not interested in going back and rehashing the entire conversation with you. To go point for point, fact for fact, and how we got to opinions being thrown around.

Careful mate. Some folks just don't know when to say when.

[Ielenia]

On the other hand, can you provide any lore where Engineers invent anything?

Mekkatorque created the mechanostriders, I believe. He also designed the Deeprun Tram between Ironforge and Stormwind.

I would believe the idea that Engineers can invent stuff is purely headcanon, and not substantiated in any lore so far.

Are you really implying the idea that Engineers are mentally incapable of creating new stuff!?

[Thimagryn]

Mekkatorque created the mechanostriders, I believe. He also designed the Deeprun Tram between Ironforge and Stormwind.

But our Engineers don't resemble Mekkatorque. Our own engineers can't invent machines like mechanostriders, or the Deeprun Tram. As Engineers, our skill and application of Engineering is not done in the same way as Mekkatorque. There is no lore that supports that any of our characters can train themselves to create vehicles that have never existed before.

Aside from this, Mekkatorque's title is High Tinker.

Are you really implying the idea that Engineers are mentally incapable of creating new stuff!?

No. I'm saying there is no proof that Engineers customizes their own technology, therefore there is room for a Class that can and does. The idea that Engineers invent machines has not been supported by lore.

[Traveler Voltin]

Blackfuse.
*mic drop*

[Ielenia]

But we aren't Mekkatorque. Our own engineers can't invent machines like mechanostriders, or the Deeprun Tram.

Geezus, first you ask of me to mention engineers in the lore, then you counter my examples saying that we, the players, aren't the figures in the lore! Make up your mind, are you talking about lore, or are you talking about the gameplay profession!?

Aside from this, Mekkatorque's title is High Tinker.

That is a political position title.

No. I'm saying there is no proof that Engineers customizes their own technology, therefore there is room for a Class that can and does. The idea that Engineers invent machines has not been supported by lore.

Um... yes, it has. Deeprun Tram. Mechanostriders. The dwarves' steam tanks. Guns. Or are you going to imply engineers just found those items littering the floor, one day, and decided to make schematic out of those items? Seriously, "engineers cannot invent" is the dumbest argument ever, because it heavily implies engineers are somehow mentally impaired, devoid of any creativity and initiative whatsoever.

[RickJamesLich]

I'm surprised they haven't tried to release a tinkerer class yet... IMO that and the blademaster class are the only two real options left. Tinkerer's could be a class with engineering baked into them. That being said a tank spec (robo goblin), healing spec (healing spray... I know, an alchemist ability) and a dps spec with stuff like cluster rockets would be fun but I think such a class could be very different in comparison to the traditional dps/tank/healer roles.

[Teriz]

Blackfuse.
*mic drop*

Which makes the argument that the Engineering profession is the same as the warriors of Azeroth who use high end technology even more ridiculous.

There is clearly a class of warriors who are utilizing high end technology for combative purposes. Those warriors (whom are almost entirely Gnomes and Goblins) are using tech that is far beyond the tech utilized by the lowly profession.

The lore argument is pretty dumb since Blizzard can change the lore at will. I mean is there a lore reason why Warlocks suddenly forgot how to use Metamorphosis after having it for 3 expansions? What about the previous Demon Hunter lore that training under Illidan was so horrendous that only a few survived, yet in Legion there are literally thousands of Demon Hunters.

[TriHard]

A simple word against Tinkers:
Engineering


Not gonna happen, sorry. If you wanna play a tinker, play a gnome / goblin hunter with engineering and that is as close as you're ever going to get.

[Thimagryn]

Geezus, first you ask of me to mention engineers in the lore, then you counter my examples saying that we, the players, aren't the figures in the lore! Make up your mind, are you talking about lore, or are you talking about the gameplay profession!?

Well if I said Mekkatorque was a Tinker and he's an example of a Tinker in lore, then what do you have to say about that? You'd say he's an NPC and not a playable character. Don't play the victim here, I've seen you use that exact same reasoning.

Um... yes, it has. Deeprun Tram. Mechanostriders. The dwarves' steam tanks. Guns. Or are you going to imply engineers just found those items littering the floor, one day, and decided to make schematic out of those items? Seriously, "engineers cannot invent" is the dumbest argument ever, because it heavily implies engineers are somehow mentally impaired, devoid of any creativity and initiative whatsoever.

That only works if you assume all technology is created by Engineers. However, Tinkers are in the Warcraft lore, and are known for their inventions. Mekkatorque is proclaimed the title of High Tinker for having invented Mechanostriders and The Deeprun Tram. Many of the Gnome engineering trainers have the title of 'Tinker'.
It could be as simple as saying anyone who invents technology is a Tinker, but it's not mutually exclusive from being an Engineer as well.

[Teriz]

A simple word against Tinkers:
Engineering


Not gonna happen, sorry. If you wanna play a tinker, play a gnome / goblin hunter with engineering and that is as close as you're ever going to get.

Hunter lore and design doesn't jive with Tinker lore and potential design. That's quite evident in the Hunter abilities and talents which are clearly nature/animal derived.

[Ielenia]

Well if I said Mekkatorque was a Tinker and he's an example of a Tinker in lore, then what do you have to say about that? You'd say he's an NPC and not a playable character.

No, I didn't say that. I said he's an engineer. 'High Tinker' is just his political title. Mekkatorque is considered an engineer.

That only works if you assume all technology is created by Engineers. However, Tinkers are in the Warcraft lore, and are known for their inventions.

That's because 'tinker' is just a synonym for 'engineer'?

Mekkatorque is proclaimed the title of High Tinker for having invented Mechanostriders and The Deeprun Tram.

He is an engineer.

Many of the Gnome engineering trainers have the title of 'Tinker'.

Which lends credence to the idea that 'tinker' is a synonym to 'engineer'.

It could be as simple as saying anyone who invents technology is a Tinker, but it's not mutually exclusive from being an Engineer as well.

So Tinkers = normal people; Engineers = mentally handicapped people who are completely devoid of original thoughts?

Honestly, how can't you see the gigantic stupidity that is that argument? "One creates stuff, the other doesn't"? Seriously?

[Teriz]

I'm going to preempt this before @Teriz mentions Demon Hunters: Blood Elves are the #1 most played race on the Horde, and Night Elves are the #2 most played Alliance race. Discounting the Pandaren, Goblins and Gnomes are the #1 least played race in both factions. I really don't see how making a class exclusive to the two least played races in the game could be a 'good marketing decision'. Would it boost the number of people playing said races? Yeah, it would, but I believe it'd be by a small margin, and the class would end up even less represented than monks because of that. Goblins and Gnomes aren't the least played race just because they have little lore. To be honest, I think that's one of the last reasons people don't pick either race. I think most don't like the "lawn gnome" or "gremlin" designs. Some don't like the cutesy voice of the gnomes, others just don't like short races, etc. The fact is, lore is not the main reason those races are underrepresented, and to claim so is dishonest.

Sorry, I missed this response...

There's an alternative way you could look at it;

Blizzard could potentially wish for Goblins and Gnomes to become more popular, and simply base an expansion on them in an attempt to increase their popularity. Whether or not such an effort would be successful is an entirely different argument. However, saying that Blizzard wouldn't do it because Goblins and Gnomes aren't as popular as elves is kind of silly. No race is as popular as elves in WoW (except probably Humans).