View Poll Results: Tinkers as the next class?

Voters
937. This poll is closed
  • Yes - If done correctly

    330 35.22%
  • No - Tinkers make no sense

    340 36.29%
  • Maybe - If done correctly

    122 13.02%
  • Other - Stated below

    15 1.60%
  • Don't give a fuck either way

    130 13.87%
Page 15 of 51 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
17
25
... LastLast
  1. #281
    Elemental Lord Flutterguy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Derpifornia
    Posts
    8,137
    Tinkers are already in the game. Roll and engineer.

  2. #282
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    So is it also "arguable" that your level 110 Demon Hunter is more powerful than a level 5 bunny in Elwyn Forest despite your DH being able to kill it with a swipe of its weapon or can we use our brains and reach a logical conclusion?
    So, when presented with the fact that we cannot ascertain which of the two high-tech mechs is more powerful outside of game mechanics... your answer is to compare max level players with critters. You're being quite dishonest, here, and that's putting it mildly. Let me just put this in perspective to you: Blackhand (WoD raid boss) is not more powerful than the Lich King (WotLK raid boss), Kael'thas (BC raid boss) or even Ragnaros (vanilla raid boss).

    Uh, it was never wrong because that was never my argument in the first place. This was;

    Its not about simply "piloting a mech". Its about the profession properly representing a fantasy showcased by major NPCs. Reaves Combat Module doesn't do that.
    Of course you'd say it doesn't work for you. Because if it did you'd have to own up to all those twisted nonsense you wrote about it, like this:

    Again, because the player isn't a Goblin or Gnome mechanical genius, thus creates highly flawed and inferior pieces of machinery loaded with drawbacks. Considering how terrible and gimped the Reaves Module Combat mode is, it is a perfectly logical reason.
    Again: what could POSSIBLY be the flaw and/or drawback that prevents the mech from being used anywhere else? Your dumb, childish explanation simply doesn't make logical sense. Stop taking gameplay restrictions and claiming them to be lore restriction without showing how it works in the lore.

    If Audi says that Hans Gruber invented your car and makes no mention of any third party, then its reasonable to assume that Hans Gruber built everything inside your car.
    No, it is not.

    Again, my lore-based argument about the restriction makes perfect logical sense if you simply admit that the profession isn't the same as the Tinkers we're seeing throughout the game.
    I will not admit to something that doesn't really exist and was created solely to create a division between two things that, throughout the entire game, have been shown to be identical and synonyms to each other, just so you could push your narrative.

    That baseless distinction only exists because it's the only "leg" tinker hypothesis have to stand on, and admitting that would make the entire tinker narrative to fall apart faster than a castle of cards in a tornado.

    If you hold on to your flawed argument that somehow the engineering profession is the exact same as what Mekkatorque, Blackfuse, Gazlowe, and others have done/can do, then the gameplay restrictions on Reaves and Engineering in general makes zero sense.
    Do you ever think about what you write before you write it? Think about it: imagine the Reaves mech was subject to the same restrictions and bonuses as players, and could be used in dungeons. In this case, why won't every single raider in the game be an engineer? After all, just hop into your mech before the fight, and engage the boss. You get a second life, since when your mech is destroyed you just eject from it, D.Va style, and continue to fight. Flasks? Just make an alt to make those. Enchants? Gems? Same thing. PvP? Same thing. Battlegrounds become a mech-fest. Come on, man. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

    Then again, considering your current arguments...
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  3. #283
    Herald of the Titans Racthoh's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,501
    i think that for sure engineering profession would see changes/removals if tinker were to become a class. items like rocket gloves, rocket boots, mind control helmets etc.

  4. #284
    Maybe we can get blademasters as a class next! Oooo, or witch doctors. Maybe shadow hunters? Though personally I would prefer necromancers.

  5. #285
    The Tinker class is the last creatively brilliant idea for a class left for this game, in all honesty.

    As long as the theme revolves around a mech suit depending on spec, turrets + bombs , flamethrower, maybe some utility besides traps so they don't conflict with hunters, perhaps something along the lines of biofield enhancements, deploy-able aoe buffs that works somewhat differently from totems etc. maybe a healing spec that revolves around healing grenades and med-packs and for a dps build flamethrowers + rocketlaunchers and the circular saws for melee attacks ( a design slightly similar to rumble in league of legends ) or the mech suits could be a timer powerup like metamorphosis, but I feel like blizz can pull out a cooler design by making utility in mech and outside mech, forcing swapping in/out of both to reward skill or something of the sort, the resources for tinkers would be parts and the heating up concept which would change some of what their abilities do depending on how much heat they've built up.

    Oh and Gnomes/Goblins only ! I can honestly see this idea working well.
    Last edited by wholol; 2017-05-21 at 01:30 PM.

  6. #286
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    So, when presented with the fact that we cannot ascertain which of the two high-tech mechs is more powerful outside of game mechanics... your answer is to compare max level players with critters. You're being quite dishonest, here, and that's putting it mildly. Let me just put this in perspective to you: Blackhand (WoD raid boss) is not more powerful than the Lich King (WotLK raid boss), Kael'thas (BC raid boss) or even Ragnaros (vanilla raid boss).
    Actually based on health, abilities, and the required increase in power level of your hero in order to beat them, yes they are.

    This is the flaw of your lore argument on a game. In order for the game to progress there needs to be a stretch in the lore. We're playing a game here, not reading a storybook. Since it's obvious that lore-wise our characters are getting more powerful (because even in lore, time passes between expansions) with each passing expansion, the enemies we're fighting are obviously more powerful than previous enemies we fought in older expansions.

    Of course you'd say it doesn't work for you. Because if it did you'd have to own up to all those twisted nonsense you wrote about it, like this:


    Again: what could POSSIBLY be the flaw and/or drawback that prevents the mech from being used anywhere else? Your dumb, childish explanation simply doesn't make logical sense. Stop taking gameplay restrictions and claiming them to be lore restriction without showing how it works in the lore.
    Sorry, but it makes perfect logical sense. If you can't get it, I can't help you.


    No, it is not.
    Yes it is. However, beyond this silly example, please provide some evidence from your precious lore that shows that anyone worked on the Iron Juggernaut besides Blackfuse.


    I will not admit to something that doesn't really exist and was created solely to create a division between two things that, throughout the entire game, have been shown to be identical and synonyms to each other, just so you could push your narrative.
    You mean like Enchanter and Mage? Those are synonyms, yet clearly very different from each other.

    That baseless distinction only exists because it's the only "leg" tinker hypothesis have to stand on, and admitting that would make the entire tinker narrative to fall apart faster than a castle of cards in a tornado.
    Well if gameplay is the only leg, then its a pretty big one. As it stands now, the game doesn't represent a class type that exists among Goblins and Gnomes. This obvious hole in gameplay is why demand for a Tinker class is so high.

    Do you ever think about what you write before you write it? Think about it: imagine the Reaves mech was subject to the same restrictions and bonuses as players, and could be used in dungeons. In this case, why won't every single raider in the game be an engineer? After all, just hop into your mech before the fight, and engage the boss. You get a second life, since when your mech is destroyed you just eject from it, D.Va style, and continue to fight. Flasks? Just make an alt to make those. Enchants? Gems? Same thing. PvP? Same thing. Battlegrounds become a mech-fest. Come on, man. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
    So in other words the profession is unable to take the place of a class? I actually agree, so let's make the class so that the fantasy established by prominent Goblin and Gnome characters can actually be enjoyed by players. The class will limit who can pilot the combat mech, and the associated abilities will be balanced among the classes.

    In the end, assembling and playing with Reaves isn't enjoyable, but the fact that people are willing to go through that hell just to experience fighting inside a mech shows that there's a demand for that type of gameplay.

    I agree with Jtree that Reaves Piloted Combat Module and Gnomes and Goblins piloting combat mechs in Legion could be a harbinger for what's to come.
    Last edited by Rhamses; 2017-05-21 at 01:30 PM.

  7. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Actually based on health, abilities, and the required increase in power level of your hero in order to beat them, yes they are.

    This is the flaw of your lore argument on a game. In order for the game to progress there needs to be a stretch in the lore. We're playing a game here, not reading a storybook. Since it's obvious that lore-wise our characters are getting more powerful (because even in lore, time passes between expansions) with each passing expansion, the enemies we're fighting are obviously more powerful than previous enemies we fought in older expansions.



    Sorry, but it makes perfect logical sense. If you can't get it, I can't help you.




    Yes it is. However, beyond this silly example, please provide some evidence from your precious lore that shows that anyone worked on the Iron Juggernaut besides Blackfuse.




    You mean like Enchanter and Mage? Those are synonyms, yet clearly very different from each other.



    Well if gameplay is the only leg, then its a pretty big one. As it stands now, the game doesn't represent a class type that exists among Goblins and Gnomes. This obvious hole in gameplay is why demand for a Tinker class is so high.



    So in other words the profession is unable to take the place of a class? I actually agree, so let's make the class so that the fantasy established by prominent Goblin and Gnome characters can actually be enjoyed by players. The class will limit who can pilot the combat mech, and the associated abilities will be balanced among the classes.

    In the end, assembling and playing with Reaves isn't enjoyable, but the fact that people are willing to go through that hell just to experience fighting inside a mech shows that there's a demand for that type of gameplay.

    I agree with Jtree that Reaves Piloted Combat Module and Gnomes and Goblins piloting combat mechs in Legion could be a harbinger for what's to come.
    Your understanding of lore is wrong. I'm not going to offer you a debate, because there isnt one. You just flat out don't understand how lore works.

  8. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by Racthoh View Post
    i think that for sure engineering profession would see changes/removals if tinker were to become a class. items like rocket gloves, rocket boots, mind control helmets etc.
    I don't think so.

    Here's some abilities that come from Gazlowe and Noggenfogger's shredder mechs:

    Flamethrower
    Channeled (3 sec cast) 5 sec cooldown
    Deals Fire damage to all enemies in a cone in front of the caster for 3 sec.

    Skyfall
    40 yd range
    Instant 10 sec cooldown
    Launch yourself at an enemy, inflicting 0 Nature damage to nearby enemies and slowing enemy movement speed by 0% for until cancelled.

    Here's a melee ability from a similar mech:

    Shred
    Melee Range
    Channeled (3 sec cast) 6 sec cooldown
    Inflicts 900 to 1100 Physical damage to enemies in a cone in front of the caster every 0.5 sec. and slows the caster by 50% for 3 sec.

    So yeah, we're dealing with a different set of abilities. Those items can stay in Engineering because there's zero overlap.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shostradamus View Post
    Your understanding of lore is wrong. I'm not going to offer you a debate, because there isnt one. You just flat out don't understand how lore works.
    If you honestly believe that Reaves Piloted Combat Module is the same lore-wise as Gelbin, Blackfuse, Gazlowe, or Marin's combat mechs, then you don't understand how logic works.

  9. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    I don't think so.

    Here's some abilities that come from Gazlowe and Noggenfogger's shredder mechs:

    Flamethrower
    Channeled (3 sec cast) 5 sec cooldown
    Deals Fire damage to all enemies in a cone in front of the caster for 3 sec.

    Skyfall
    40 yd range
    Instant 10 sec cooldown
    Launch yourself at an enemy, inflicting 0 Nature damage to nearby enemies and slowing enemy movement speed by 0% for until cancelled.

    Here's a melee ability from a similar mech:

    Shred
    Melee Range
    Channeled (3 sec cast) 6 sec cooldown
    Inflicts 900 to 1100 Physical damage to enemies in a cone in front of the caster every 0.5 sec. and slows the caster by 50% for 3 sec.

    So yeah, we're dealing with a different set of abilities. Those items can stay in Engineering because there's zero overlap.

    - - - Updated - - -



    If you honestly believe that Reaves Piloted Combat Module is the same lore-wise as Gelbin, Blackfuse, Gazlowe, or Marin's combat mechs, then you don't understand how logic works.
    I don't care about the comparison between Reaves and whatever else. Your understanding of bosses and power level increases is just way off.

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Shostradamus View Post
    I don't care about the comparison between Reaves and whatever else. Your understanding of bosses and power level increases is just way off.
    So you don't believe that "lore-wise" your character is increasing in power level from one expansion to the next?

  11. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    So you don't believe that "lore-wise" your character is increasing in power level from one expansion to the next?
    Not exactly. Until recently, the pc was part of a small group that took down major enemies, lore wise. The greatest threats and the most powerful threats haven't attacked in chronological order. Also we gain levels and "New gear" for gameplay purposes; not because of lore. The two are different concepts. Skorpyron isn't more powerful than Deathwing. Its fine if you don't understand lore. It just makes your rant look silly when you blatantly display you don't understand it.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by Shostradamus View Post
    Not exactly. Until recently, the pc was part of a small group that took down major enemies, lore wise. The greatest threats and the most powerful threats haven't attacked in chronological order. Also we gain levels and "New gear" for gameplay purposes; not because of lore. The two are different concepts. Skorpyron isn't more powerful than Deathwing. Its fine if you don't understand lore. It just makes your rant look silly when you blatantly display you don't understand it.
    Actually it is in chronological order. We know this because in every expansion the narrator mentions the previous expansion's events when you create your character, and actual items in the gameworld change as well (such as Garrosh becoming Warchief after WotLK, and Stormwind being mauled by Deathwing). We fought the Lich King after we fought Illidan. We fought Deathwing after we fought the Lich King. We fought Garrosh after we fought Deathwing. We fought in Draenor after we fought Garrosh, and Legion takes place directly after the events in Draenor. How is that NOT in chronological order?

    You're also wrong about us not really gaining new gear and levels. In the game we have to go through countless trials and battles in order to fight stronger and stronger enemies. If your argument was true, then lore-wise we could walk up to Gul'Dan at level 1 and smack him in the face. How's that for a silly argument?

    In reality, it makes perfect sense lore-wise that a warrior trainee in Northshire Abbey would get mauled by a dire wolf in Darkshire. It makes perfect sense that over time a character builds in power to fight tougher and tougher enemies. That's a pretty common trope in just about every role-playing game out there, and its an integral part of the lore of the game. I mean, you aren't summoned by the king at level 1 to help fight off the Iron Horde at level 1 because you'd get plastered. You're summoned after saving the day in Outland, Northrend, and Pandaria, you know, after you've gained some experience and become an accomplished hero.

    Your problem (and Ielenia's problem) is that you honestly believe that lore matters in a video game. Blizzard mangles lore all the time for the sake of gameplay, so the idea that any concept or idea would be held back because of lore (that Blizzard completely controls anyway) is stupid. The Lich King and Deathwing being weaker than Gul'Dan is simply another example of why I'm right and you and Ielenia are wrong.
    Last edited by Rhamses; 2017-05-21 at 02:34 PM.

  13. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Actually it is in chronological order. We know this because in every expansion the narrator mentions the previous expansion's events when you create your character, and actual items in the gameworld change as well (such as Garrosh becoming Warchief after WotLK, and Stormwind being mauled by Deathwing). We fought the Lich King after we fought Illidan. We fought Deathwing after we fought the Lich King. We fought Garrosh after we fought Deathwing. We fought in Draenor after we fought Garrosh, and Legion takes place directly after the events in Draenor. How is that NOT in chronological order?

    You're also wrong about us not really gaining new gear and levels. In the game we have to go through countless trials and battles in order to fight stronger and stronger enemies. If your argument was true, then lore-wise we could walk up to Gul'Dan at level 1 and smack him in the face. How's that for a silly argument?

    In reality, it makes perfect sense lore-wise that a warrior trainee in Northshire Abbey would get mauled by a dire wolf in Darkshire. It makes perfect sense that over time a character builds in power to fight tougher and tougher enemies. That's a pretty common trope in just about every role-playing game out there, and its an integral part of the lore of the game. I mean, you aren't summoned by the king at level 1 to help fight off the Iron Horde at level 1 because you'd get plastered. You're summoned after saving the day in Outland, Northrend, and Pandaria, you know, after you've gained some experience and become an accomplished hero.

    Your problem (and Ielenia's problem) is that you honestly believe that lore matters in a video game. Blizzard mangles lore all the time for the sake of gameplay, so the idea that any concept or idea would be held back because of lore (that Blizzard completely controls anyway) is stupid. The Lich King and Deathwing being weaker than Gul'Dan is simply another example of why I'm right and you and Ielenia are wrong.
    The events are in chronological order. The order in which he have faced the deadliest threats is not. Lore matters as much as class fantasy and class identity. If the lore doesn't matter, and the class fantasy and identity do not matter, and all you want is a guy flying a mech around, go find a game about guys flying mechs. Obviously lore and class fantasy and identity matter in a game with a rich history, and well established story. If the lore didn't matter, there wouldn't be Chronicles or novels about it. It's completely possible to not care about the lore, and I wouldn't fault someone for that. It's asinine, however, to say the Reaves module doesn't convey the class fantasy then argue that lore doesn't matter, when class fantasy only exists because of the lore it was founded upon. You have not provide a single sentence to draw the conclusion you are "right" about anything. At this point I'm starting to realize I'm arguing with a moron, and that doesn't make me look too good either, so I suppose I should step away.

  14. #294
    The Lightbringer Snes's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,770
    Tinkers make sense, just let them use tech that is way out of the league of engineering. Such as Titan technology, Anima, Fel Tech, and so on.
    Take a break from politics once in awhile, it's good for you.

  15. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by Shostradamus View Post
    The events are in chronological order. The order in which he have faced the deadliest threats is not.
    Again, false. The event in which we fought the Lich King took place before the event in which we fought Deathwing. Again, changes in the game from expansion to expansion illustrate this fact. For example, Deathwing's head hangs in Stormwind and Orgrimmar during Mists of Pandaria, indicating that we defeated Deathwing BEFORE the events in MoP. Vol'Jin is war chief AFTER Mists of Pandaria indicating that Siege of Orgrimmar happened BEFORE the events in Warlords of Draenor.

    You have not provide a single sentence to draw the conclusion you are "right" about anything. At this point I'm starting to realize I'm arguing with a moron, and that doesn't make me look too good either, so I suppose I should step away.
    See above. You were proven wrong once again.

    Hopefully we can end this silly talk of lore and get back to discussing the actual topic of this discussion?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Rhamses; 2017-05-21 at 03:05 PM.

  16. #296
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Actually based on health, abilities, and the required increase in power level of your hero in order to beat them, yes they are.
    Except 'health, abilities and the required increase in power level' are gameplay, but we're talking lore, here. Though it's not surprising you confuse the two.

    This is the flaw of your lore argument on a game.
    Actually this is a flaw of your entire arguments. You keep mistaking gameplay with lore and conflating the two.

    Sorry, but it makes perfect logical sense. If you can't get it, I can't help you.
    There is no logic. Time and again I questioned you on your logic, asking you to explain it, and all you do is say "it makes logical sense". In other words, you're saying "it makes sense because I say it does."

    Yes it is. However, beyond this silly example, please provide some evidence from your precious lore that shows that anyone worked on the Iron Juggernaut besides Blackfuse.
    Why? I'm not claiming anyone else did. I'm claiming someone could. In other words, a hypothesis. You were the one who made the claim Blackfuse was the sole person to work on the Iron Juggernaut. In other words: a claim. So it's you who must present evidence of your claim.

    You mean like Enchanter and Mage? Those are synonyms, yet clearly very different from each other.
    Not quite. Unlike engineering, the teachings of magic are divided among several schools, 'enchanting' being just one of those. Enchanters are simply those who know the enchanting school only, for the most part. Engineering isn't divided like that. It doesn't have the 'school of bolts', the 'school of nuts', the 'school of welding' and things like that. It's just one single 'school'. And before you point out goblin and gnomish engineering, those aren't proper schools, just design philosophies one can switch to and from at any time (and even technically know both at the same time, but gameplay does not allow that).

    Well if gameplay is the only leg, then its a pretty big one.
    It's nothing. It's a lie that is perpetrated simply because, without it, the 'tinker' class idea crumbles to dust.

    So in other words the profession is unable to take the place of a class?
    Way to misrepresent the argument.

    In the end, assembling and playing with Reaves isn't enjoyable,
    Nor is leveling a character from level 1 to max, so there's that.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  17. #297
    Immortal Pua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Motonui
    Posts
    7,552
    I can't see it.

    A tinker is much more likely to be a profession specialization, rather than a class (assuming those were ever brought back), and we all know what profession I'm talking about. That's where the fantasy is largely placed in-game at the moment and, though we know Blizzard are happy changing that up, I've yet to hear a good argument as to why tinker would work.

  18. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhamses View Post
    Again, false. The event in which we fought the Lich King took place before the event in which we fought Deathwing. Again, changes in the game from expansion to expansion illustrate this fact. For example, Deathwing's head hangs in Stormwind and Orgrimmar during Mists of Pandaria, indicating that we defeated Deathwing BEFORE the events in MoP. Vol'Jin is war chief AFTER Mists of Pandaria indicating that Siege of Orgrimmar happened BEFORE the events in Warlords of Draenor.



    See above. You were proven wrong once again.

    Hopefully we can end this silly talk of lore and get back to discussing the actual topic of this discussion?

    Thanks.
    The events are in order. The threat level is not. The potential danger is not linear. Kargath Bladefist from WoE was not a bigger threat to Azeroth than the Lich.King because fought at a later date.

  19. #299
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Aviemore View Post
    I can't see it.

    A tinker is much more likely to be a profession specialization, rather than a class (assuming those were ever brought back), and we all know what profession I'm talking about. That's where the fantasy is largely placed in-game at the moment and, though we know Blizzard are happy changing that up, I've yet to hear a good argument as to why tinker would work.
    Tinkers would work because no other class in the game is remotely similar. Also (if we go with the mech pilot angle), the class can easily fill the desire of a new physical ranged class that isn't anything remotely like what we currently have. Tinkers piloting mechs is a common occurrence in WoW and other WC media, so it isn't something out of left field.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWay View Post
    Demon hunters existed in Warcraft 3 with ability to metamorph. So, it's more logical that Demon hunters have it than warlocks. There is your explanation.

    Oh and evidence to support it - Demon Hunter
    Where's the in-game lore to support Warlocks suddenly forgetting how to turn into demons? Did Demon Hunters scare it out of them?

  20. #300
    Im tired of seeing the "Tinker will never happen because we have engineering". Can i use my engineering to do competitive dps? Trust me....Tinkers WILL happen....whether people like it or not. Lots of people were sure Blizzard wouldnt implement Demon Hunter....but, voila, and what pray tell are these Demon Hunters going to do if the next expansion is Old God themed or Titan themed? I guess someone has to stay behind to cook and clean.

Posting Permissions

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