Tinkers In Our Future?

[Ielenia]

It becomes canon and Lore the moment Blizz says so... not us.

Which is why I'm reminding you it's not. Because Blizzard so far hasn't made it canon. Not only that, Blizzard has also said that Heroes of the Storm is not canon to any of the franchises it pulls characters from.

[Thimagryn]

Why is that still important when you already admit it becomes canon as soon as they add the class?

Same shit happened with Demon Hunters. By the end of TBC, we'd eradicated most-if-not-all of the Illidari. That was canon.

[Ielenia]

Why is that still important when you already admit it becomes canon as soon as they add the class?

Same shit happened with Demon Hunters. By the end of TBC, we'd eradicated most-if-not-all of the Illidari. That was canon.

You're losing sight of the original argument, in which said that "because it exists in WC3 and HotS, it exists in WoW".

[Thimagryn]

You're losing sight of the original argument, in which said that "because it exists in WC3 and HotS, it exists in WoW".

And I asked you why is that still important when we know new class brings in new canon? Whether it exists or not, new canon will confirm or create lore for Tinkers as they were and should have been in history. Same shit with Pandaren backstory. Hell, their introduction even brings in a gross inconsistency of all Pandaren we've met (Chen in War3, any other Brewmaster) saying 'For Pandaria!' despite the fact they all would have come from the Wandering Isle and had never set foot in Pandaria until MoP.

Kiradyn points out people saying Tinkers not making sense, and that they in fact do. That doesn't necessarily mean lore. You answered with lore as you were assuming the statement was directed to their story implementation. And as I'm pointing out here, even if you factored in lore only, you're failing to address how the lore gets re-established anyways, doing away with any previous iteration.

Pandaren we have now are from the Wandering Isles. Illidari we have now are the super-elite that Illidan sent secretly to other worlds and who got captured by Maiev. Previous iterations of meeting Pandaren saying "For Pandaria!" or Demon Hunters who strayed from Illidan's path are no longer consistent with the new world view.

[Kiradyn]

Neither are canon to the game's story, y'know?

I understand that, but can you honestly say that a Tinker class makes no sense in WoW when we have Goblins and Gnomes with a heavy affinity towards machines and technology?

[Ielenia]

And I asked you why is that still important when we know new class brings in new canon?

Again, you're losing sight of the original argument. By pointing out at WC3 and HotS tinker heroes, they're claiming that those are canon right now in WoW, therefore they already exist in WoW lore.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand that, but can you honestly say that a Tinker class makes no sense in WoW when we have Goblins and Gnomes with a heavy affinity towards machines and technology?

Yes, I can. Honestly. Because, lore-wise, tinkers are no different at all than engineers.

[Kiradyn]

Yes, I can. Honestly. Because, lore-wise, tinkers are no different at all than engineers.

But there isn't an engineering class in WoW...

[Thimagryn]

Again, you're losing sight of the original argument. By pointing out at WC3 and HotS tinker heroes, they're claiming that those are canon right now in WoW, therefore they already exist in WoW lore.

Again, why is that important? You still haven't answered the question. You seem to be hung up on this one thing that no one else has presented as being a problem or even related to a the prospect of a Tinker class.

It's like if someone talked about a Dragonsworn class and how it'd be cool to play as a champion of the Dragonflights, you'd be 'that guy' who points out Dragonsworn aren't canon. Do you understand how irrelevant current lore is in context to a new class that doesn't yet formally exist?

[Ielenia]

But there isn't an engineering class in WoW...

I'm amazed at the low level of mental development some posters display, here in MMO-Champion, to be unable to differentiate lore from gameplay, even when precisely stated in the single-line paragraph they quote.

[Deleted]

Tinkers would be fun. If they did that though they would probably need to gut the current Beast Mastery to make it so. BM almost feels like a tinker right now (especially with a mechanical pet), about like how the Glyph of Demon Hunting felt on warlocks before it was removed.

Nah... Tinkers are not a pet class. The mechanical pets don't overlap with tinkers.

[Ielenia]

Again, why is that important? You still haven't answered the question. You seem to be hung up on this one thing that no one else has presented

You say "no one has presented", yet that has been what many people said about the concept.

[Deleted]

If they add tinkers, I think Dwarves and Forsaken should also be able to play them. Dwarves are quite technological already and Forsaken use things like catapults, alchemy, and electricity.

If tinkers are a thing, I think it should be the time for gnomes and goblins to shine, much like DH's. But would be expanded in later expansions.

[Thimagryn]

You say "no one has presented", yet that has been what many people said about the concept.

That the Tinker isn't canon to the story? No, that isn't what many people have said about the concept.

You still haven't answered the question. Why is Warcraft 3 Tinker lore important in this discussion, and what point are you making by saying it isn't canon?

Without any explanation, I can only interpret your actions as trying to discredit the Tinker concept on the basis that it doesn't formally exist in lore. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I simply don't understand why you feel the need to point out current lore mistakes when they are completely irrelevant to a potential Tinker Playable Class.

[Teriz]

Nah... Tinkers are not a pet class. The mechanical pets don't overlap with tinkers.

Agreed. If anything I'd expect turrets to be the main feature of the class instead of mechanical pets. The Tinker would be able to upgrade them on multiple levels depending on spec, much like the HotS Tinker. I would further expect a physical ranged DPS spec to have a far more robust upgrade system than the other specs, with the tank spec having the least levels of upgrades for turrets.

[-Joker-]

Which is why I'm reminding you it's not. Because Blizzard so far hasn't made it canon. Not only that, Blizzard has also said that Heroes of the Storm is not canon to any of the franchises it pulls characters from.

According to the history of WoW Tinkers, anything from the RPG is non-canon. Guess which other character class came from the RPG and was non-canon? Yep, it's shown above. As for the Tinkers and the Tinker's Union of Azeroth, both are considered canon and are simply not a playable class... yet.

Not sure why you are so frightened by Tinkers becoming a reality. Even Blizz says Tinkers are based on ENG and are primarily Gnome and Goblin. Oh, and if you need a citation, I'm sure Google will give you the same one it gave me.

[Archmage Alodi]

I like the idea but i really don't want more classes that they can't design and balance properly.

[Nadiru]

Only if they wear Mail or Plate, and only if their aesthetic changes dramatically between different spec roles.

[-Joker-]

Only if they wear Mail or Plate, and only if their aesthetic changes dramatically between different spec roles.

It would be Int Mail, but the Int would be used in an effort to have Mana power the mech suit. I picture 3 different suits.

Tank - Rugged and Worn, a bit like bounty hunter gear in SWTOR
DPS - Shiny, with lots of arm and back mounted launchers
Heals - White/Silver or Green/Blue with med packs, injectors, etc mounted down the arms and legs for easy access

[Kiradyn]

Only if they wear Mail or Plate, and only if their aesthetic changes dramatically between different spec roles.

Pretty sure if this class is ever implemented it will take the 3rd mail slot, and be the second class to use INT mail.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. If anything I'd expect turrets to be the main feature of the class instead of mechanical pets. The Tinker would be able to upgrade them on multiple levels depending on spec, much like the HotS Tinker. I would further expect a physical ranged DPS spec to have a far more robust upgrade system than the other specs, with the tank spec having the least levels of upgrades for turrets.

Didn't Shaman have issues with their searing totem when it came to DPS? Don't think it would be a good idea to attach your DPS to what is essentially a totem.

[Ielenia]

According to the history of WoW Tinkers, anything from the RPG is non-canon. Guess which other character class came from the RPG and was non-canon? Yep, it's shown above.

The Monk class did not "come" from the RPG. The 'RPG' you mention there is not the WC3 game, but the Warcraft RPG books developed and published by White Wolf for the d20 system.

As for the Tinkers and the Tinker's Union of Azeroth, both are considered canon and are simply not a playable class... yet.

And the Shado-Pan an organizations of monks. And the Silver Hand an organization of paladins. And etc. Also, as for the 'both are considered canon', read the 'trivia' part: "It is assumed that the Tinkers' Union is a trade union of goblin tinkers (also known as engineers)". I wonder why that part in bold exists.

Not sure why you are so frightened by Tinkers becoming a reality.

I'm not. This is just a lie you made up, probably in an attempt to hand-wave the arguments of the opposition. But I'm not surprised to see you're not above making some ad-hominem to make yourself feel better.

Even Blizz says Tinkers are based on ENG and are primarily Gnome and Goblin. Oh, and if you need a citation, I'm sure Google will give you the same one it gave me.

Go ahead and show me this citation, then. I'll be waiting.