Tinkers In Our Future?

[Teriz]

That... doesn't help the tech class' case very much, in terms of reasoning for its creation. What you're basically describing is the druid class, with just a different paint job tossed on it, since you're ascribing basically no difference between the two other than the 'paint job'. Also, it can't really have a 'rich lore' as most of the tech lore has already been created, unless several retcons happen, here.

Which is like saying that Death Knights are Paladins with a different paint job.

Mechanical vs Nature is about as polar opposite as Unholy vs. Holy.

As for the lore, Blizzard can just create it. They did that very thing with Tauren, Troll, and Worgen druid lore.

[Thimagryn]

Fighting on mounts isn't that special. Hell, DKs and paladins even have a order hall upgrade that lets them do it. There's also Divine Steed, but that's only 4 seconds of mount fighting.

Context is that Gnomes mounted on Mechs (mechanostrider and spiderbots) isn't rare to see amongst Gnomes/Goblins. Same as you point out here if someone were to say mounted Death Knights are a rare occurance; which it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

That... doesn't help the tech class' case very much, in terms of reasoning for its creation. What you're basically describing is the druid class, with just a different paint job tossed on it, since you're ascribing basically no difference between the two other than the 'paint job'. Also, it can't really have a 'rich lore' as most of the tech lore has already been created, unless several retcons happen, here.

Retcons happen regardless. Every class we've been given has undergone massive lore changes in order to allow them to fit into the Alliance and Horde. If you were to stick to lore for Death Knights and Demon Hunters as they existed before the playable classes, you would never have a reason why they can join the Alliance and Horde. Hell, we still don't have definitive lore on why and how we suddenly have Monks for non-Pandaren races over night. Lore-wise, they weren't even necessary for the expansion.

Technology is easily explained, you just don't seem to like the idea of a Tinker having any amount of overlap with Engineers despite their vast differences. I don't see why a Tinker creating or buying their tech is any different than a Hunter who creates or buys their own traps and ammo. Tinkers are smart and resourceful enough to fit either profile of being a scrapyard junk rat who mish-mashe's their equipment or a high-profiled master of gadgets like Batman or Ironman. Same can be applied to the lore of many classes. A militant war veteran, an ex-slave gladiator and a royal guard could all be classified under the same category of Warrior. There's honestly no real limit or hard definition to how a Tinker obtains or uses their technology, and nothing has to be so different from Engineering that people will be up in arms about the thematic overlap.

Honestly, the differences between classes and professions are already apparant enough that it's a non issue. There are numerous classes that use Alchemy and Enchantments without requiring those professions. There are classes that revolve around the growth and culturing of plants without Herbalism. Anyone can be an herbalist, but only few can be Druids. Same will be with Engineers and Tinkers, because it's the differences that will define each other. It's as simple as Blizzard saying 'Tinkers have special Battle Mech Suits that only they can use in combat'. And sure there are exceptions, like an Engineer riding a Shredder during some quest, but it'd be like a Warlock holding a sword pretending to be a Demon Hunter. Not the same thing at all.

[Orangetai420]

No, please no. No more classes.

[Ielenia]

Which is like saying that Death Knights are Paladins with a different paint job.

Mechanical vs Nature is about as polar opposite as Unholy vs. Holy.

Except... Death Knights aren't like Paladins. They wield no shields, they cannot heal, they have pets, they can tank without shields, they're practically unlimited by race, etc.

Meanwhile, for tinkers... more and more you make them like druids. Able to perform all roles, heavily race-restricted, "alternate forms" they fight in, etc...

- - - Updated - - -

Retcons happen regardless. Every class we've been given has undergone massive lore changes in order to allow them to fit into the Alliance and Horde. If you were to stick to lore for Death Knights and Demon Hunters as they existed before the playable classes, you would never have a reason why they can join the Alliance and Horde. Hell, we still don't have definitive lore on why and how we suddenly have Monks for non-Pandaren races over night. Lore-wise, they weren't even necessary for the expansion.

Except... none of what you mentioned above was a retcon. A retcon is not synonym for 'change'. Every retcon is a change, yes, but not all changes are retcons. Changes can be additions too.

Technology is easily explained, you just don't seem to like the idea of a Tinker having any amount of overlap with Engineers despite their vast differences.

"Vast differences"? I've yet to see one that doesn't solely depend on gameplay. A warrior doesn't stop being a warrior if he decides to train more warriors. A mage doesn't stop being a mage if they decide to set up shop and sell potions.

[ayentee]

i'd like a class that completely re imagines the mechanics of the game. I think tinkers would work here.

First thing - pick any race you like because you'll never see your character, as it stays inside its mech suit at all times.

Second - Let the class build its own gear. Drops for them wouldn't be for the normal gear slots. They'd be parts that they combine in different ways to create different abilities, skills or utilities.

Third - No talents, No specs. Their gear customization can be made to be deep enough to cover several unique builds on its own.

[Thimagryn]

"Vast differences"? I've yet to see one that doesn't solely depend on gameplay. A warrior doesn't stop being a warrior if he decides to train more warriors. A mage doesn't stop being a mage if they decide to set up shop and sell potions.

If a part of being a Tinker is training to pilot a Mech for Combat use, then we have a difference to Engineering. Even if Engineering allows you to make bikes and sky golems, a fighter jet pilot has vastly different training from an airliner pilot.

A Tinker doesn't stop being a Tinker when they decide to sell their techno gadgets or teach others how to make engineering things. It doesn't mean knowing how to make stuff using technology automatically makes you an adept mech pilot.

[Ielenia]

If a part of being a Tinker is training to pilot a Mech for Combat use, then we have a difference to Engineering.

Except that is a difference that does not currently exist. That is a made-up difference.

[Teriz]

Except... Death Knights aren't like Paladins. They wield no shields, they cannot heal, they have pets, they can tank without shields, they're practically unlimited by race, etc.

And you're saying that it would be impossible for Blizzard to come up with similar differences between someone riding a mech versus someone who can transform into animals?

[-Joker-]

False. There are no gnome tinkers in WC3.

I stand corrected. Goblin only.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what I thought. I thought it was a fun unit. They should have those in WoW.

My mistake, it was Goblin only. But since Gnomes and Goblins are similar and both excel at ENG, it makes sense to have them as the two available races for this class.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course. Medic (healing specialization); some kind of craftsman of turrets/mines/bomb throwing/gun shooting/backpack filled with a copter/vehicle that has guns and whatever else on it (DPS specialization); lastly a user could wear a suit like Gelbin Mekkatorque's Legion version (tanking specialization). Class can wear mail. For tanks, the suit is upgraded. There's some cool shit that can be done, and probably something I would jump on if the future brings them. Maybe they could get a submarine, well as other neat mounts.

I think Plate for the two tank specs and mail for the Ranged and Healing specs. It could have 4 in total, similar to Druid.

[Thimagryn]

Except that is a difference that does not currently exist. That is a made-up difference.

Well why bother talking about Tinkers at all if all you are only using current lore as a basis? This is an example of an addition to lore that separates Tinkers from Engineering. Tinkers are mecha pilots in example of gameplay and design. Engineers in WoW are not pilots, and being a pilot is not a part of Engineering lore.

Playable Tinkers don't formally exist yet, so 'current lore' is completely irrelevant at this point. You even blatantly pointed this out above that lore can be added. Why do you care about current lore when you don't even consider the (playable) Tinker to be canon at this point?

Are you somehow trying use current lore to prove that there is no precedent for Battle Mechs for a future class? Or are you mistaking all the examples of Tinkers using Mechs as 'factual evidence of current lore'?

[Ielenia]

And you're saying that it would be impossible for Blizzard to come up with similar differences between someone riding a mech versus someone who can transform into animals?

What I'm saying is that you are not making a good case for the class. Look how Blizzard's name was never mentioned until you brought it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Well why bother talking about Tinkers at all if all you are only using current lore as a basis? This is an example of an addition to lore that separates Tinkers from Engineering.

Except said 'lore' goes against currently established lore, since Blackfuse is an engineer. Omegaplugg is an engineer as well. Before the official website revamp for WoD and Legion, Mekkatorque's webpage described him as an engineer as well.

[Thimagryn]

Except said 'lore' goes against currently established lore, since Blackfuse is an engineer. Omegaplugg is an engineer as well. Before the official website revamp for WoD and Legion, Mekkatorque's webpage described him as an engineer as well.

And are you saying they can't be both an Engineer and a Tinker? It doesn't go against current established lore at all. It's an addition, as you pointed out. One can be both a Tinker and an Engineer, where is the issue here? It fits absolutely seamlessly if you consider that all NPC Engineers who pilot combat mechs can do so if they are also Tinkers; while our current player Engineers can't pilot combat mechs because they are not Tinkers. Keep in mind, none of those NPCs have been given any formal class association, as 'Engineer' is not a formal class. As far as we know, they are referred to as Engineers in lore by means of their profession.

There isn't any conflict with current lore when the Tinker lore does not yet formally exist.

[Ielenia]

About the "engineering takes care of tinkering". I always thought that it would work like Enchanting and Mages.

The issue with that comparison, is that Enchanting does one thing, and one thing only: enchanting gear. Little else. Whereas Engineering does basically everything in the technology spectrum: weapons, special helmet/goggles, turrets, mechs, robot companions, bombs, missiles, invisibility devices, rocket boosts, gliders, teleportation devices, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

And are you saying they can't be both an Engineer and a Tinker? It doesn't go against current established lore at all. It's an addition, as you pointed out.

If you want to claim that, but still insist they're not synonyms, then you need to show an actual difference between the two that actually exists in the game's lore, and not make up random differences. Yes, Blizzard is allowed to do whatever they want with the lore, but here's the thing: we are not. We don't decide what parts of the lore should be retconed or otherwise changed to fit our ideas. Our ideas have to fit in the game's lore, not the other way around.

[-Joker-]

The issue with that comparison, is that Enchanting does one thing, and one thing only: enchanting gear.

False. Enchanting is needed for a variety of recipes that bleed into other professions. Saying enchanting is only enchanting gear is like saying engineers only build weapons.

[Thimagryn]

If you want to claim that, but still insist they're not synonyms, then you need to show an actual difference between the two that actually exists in the game's lore, and not make up random differences. Yes, Blizzard is allowed to do whatever they want with the lore, but here's the thing: we are not.

Except you already know that is not provable with current lore. And fact is, current lore is the only basis you are using to look for a difference between Tinkers and Engineering, as every example mentioned has been met by the same flaccid 'That isn't current lore' answer. You understand you are asking to factually prove a the difference between Tinkers and Engineers when Tinkers don't formally exist, right? Are you trolling?

We don't decide what parts of the lore should be retconed or otherwise changed to fit our ideas. Our ideas have to fit in the game's lore, not the other way around.

So what is wrong with Tinkers who are also Engineers? Point out exactly where the lore conflict lies in my example, factoring in that 'Engineer' is not a class and is still a profession.

[Ielenia]

False. Enchanting is needed for a variety of recipes that bleed into other professions. Saying enchanting is only enchanting gear is like saying engineers only build weapons.

Enchanting, itself, does very little other than enchanting gear. That some professions may happen to very rarely need the same materials enchanting uses is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

You understand you are asking to factually prove a the difference between Tinkers and Engineers when Tinkers don't formally exist, right? Are you trolling?

So... you're saying that, if a claim is made that a certain something exists, anyone who challenges that claim is "trolling"? Is that what you're saying?

So what is wrong with Tinkers who are also Engineers? Point out exactly where the lore conflict lies in my example, factoring in that 'Engineer' is not a class and is still a profession.

There's your problem. You're confusing 'gameplay' with 'lore'.

[Thimagryn]

So... you're saying that, if a claim is made that a certain something exists, anyone who challenges that claim is "trolling"? Is that what you're saying?

Then let me challenge you with your own standards.

Are you saying they can't be both an Engineer and a Tinker? Using lore, can you prove that Tinker and Engineer are the exact same thing and that they are not separate titles that coexist?

If the answer is unprovable, then both claims have equal bearing in this matter. I don't need proof to claim they are different any more than you need proof that they are the same. The difference is, and always has been, based on opinion that is yet unconfirmed by current lore.

[Ielenia]

Not just anyone, I'm asking if you are. You are asking for an answer that you already know you will never accept as true. You only accept current lore, and you know there is no current lore for Tinkers.

And that's the whole point, isn't it? You can't claim something is canon, if whatever defines it is not shown as canon.

So prove, with lore, that Tinkers are not different from Engineers. You won't be able to, because there is no formal Tinker lore. Everything you'd base the answer on is defined by gamplay.

Wrong. There are characters who are known as 'tinker', like the gnome rep vendor in Ironforge, Master Tinker Trini, and every time you find a 'tinker' doing something, you can be certain you also find an 'engineer' doing the same thing, in the lore, be it in-game lore or in the books.

[Thimagryn]

Wrong. There are characters who are known as 'tinker', like the gnome rep vendor in Ironforge, Master Tinker Trini, and every time you find a 'tinker' doing something, you can be certain you also find an 'engineer' doing the same thing, in the lore, be it in-game lore or in the books.

But that doesn't prove that they are not individuals who may be both an Engineer AND a Tinker. So it isn't wrong at all.

In Warcraft, engineer is a catch-all for anyone who uses technology. Not that different than the term 'warrior' applying to those outside the formal player class.

[Ielenia]

But that doesn't prove that they are not individuals who may be both an Engineer AND a Tinker. So it isn't wrong at all.

What I said 'wrong' to was to your assertion that there is 'no tinker lore'. 'Tinker' exists, for the most part as a synonym for engineer, so the lore of both are one and the same. What is shown greatly indicates that the two are one and the same, synonyms.

In Warcraft, engineer is a catch-all for anyone who uses technology.

Arguably, so is 'tinker'.