Tinkers In Our Future?

[-Joker-]

(snipped)

Oh look. Another split out post with no actual evidence, and fancy latin words. Mists of Pandaria was built on the backs of ONE Pandaren monk. If they can make that, surely they can use the Tinker class to make something like:



Myself, and several others will throw money at it and make a class we've wanted since the game's inception. Oh, and as for the citation, I told you, you can find it yourself.

[Ielenia]

Oh look. Another split out post with no actual evidence,

"No evidence"? Really? You really see nothing wrong with "hand-waving" my entire post, ignoring the evidence I provide, and claim I'm presenting "no evidence"?

surely they can use the Tinker class to make something like:
http://i.imgur.com/rugCPKG.png

Except the Titans are dead, genius.

Oh, and as for the citation, I told you, you can find it yourself.

It's your job to present the evidence of your claims, buddy. Not mine. You claimed it exists, then you are the one who has to show it exists.

[Thimagryn]

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.

Searing Totem was poorly implemented though. It was essentially static 'pet' damage without the mobility of a pet, and once the DoT was removed it did insignificant damage. It also wasn't a very fun mechanic since it worked like a curse, you didn't actively have anything to do with your totem. It was barely usable for PVP, maybe just for disrupting casters or adding a smidge of sustain DPS in the chance that the enemy stayed in range of the totem.

I think with Turret gameplay they could add active abilities, where it can fire stun rockets or emit a slowing field or something. That would give it some good utility even in PVP, where you could place a turret like a Hunter's traps and zone out the enemy with the Turret abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Trivia? You mean the section clearly labeled 'Speculation'? The only bold part I see is It should not be taken as official lore

The thing is, this source of information comes from the RPG. In the RPG, Engineer is an actual playable class, so for them to say Tinker is also an Engineer it makes sense because they are both playable classes within the game. We don't have that in WoW, and that's why the terminology is completely different in context to WoW. We have no official lore that states anything about Tinkers or Engineers being the same thing. All you've ever managed to provide are ambiguous suggestions, all while calling it evidence. We don't have any Tinker or Engineer class in WoW, and the terms being tossed around for NPCs act more as titles to their craft rather than designations of a (playable) class type. It's like an NPC with the title of 'Arcanist' for a Mage NPC isn't a direct synonym to all Mages. Every Arcanist we know is a Mage, but you can't then use that to claim all Mages must then be Arcanists. You could adapt this to all the Necromancer NPCs we've seen as well being referred to as Mages.

Every Tinker might be an Engineer, but since Engineer is a broad term applied to practically any user of technology, you can't just turn it around to say Engineers are also Tinkers. So far, the Tinker title has only been given to a handful of NPCs and has never been as broadly used as the term 'Engineer'.

[Ielenia]

Trivia? You mean the section clearly labeled 'Speculation'? The only bold part I see is It should not be taken as official lore

And why do you think it's speculation, genius? If it's speculated that both are one and the same, it means that there's evidence they're one and the same.

The thing is, this source of information comes from the RPG.

Actually, it doesn't. It's a different section entirely. Again, if it was so, there would be an annotation stating it comes from the RPG books.

[tikcol]

I'm sorry but I can't stand the idea of such an ugly class roaming Azeroth. It's a dumb class that brings nothing to the table besides more clutter plaguing my screen.

There's enough explosions and stuff already. Give us a real class like Battlemage or Necromancer.

[Thimagryn]

And why do you think it's speculation, genius? If it's speculated that both are one and the same, it means that there's evidence they're one and the same.

wut?

..... Are you serious here? It's speculation, therefore there's evidence? Now that is being dishonest.

[Ielenia]

wut?

..... Are you serious here? It's speculation, therefore there's evidence? Now that is being dishonest.

It's also worth mentioning that the "speculation" part, despite being the section's title, is not just what the section is about. It's also about observations and opinions "possibly supported by lore or Blizzard", according to its default preface.

On top of that, the items themselves don't exactly say 'speculation'.

[Thimagryn]

It's also worth mentioning that the "speculation" part, despite being the section's title, is not just what the section is about. It's also about observations and opinions "possibly supported by lore or Blizzard", according to its default preface.

On top of that, the items themselves don't exactly say 'speculation'.

It's also gamepedia and the section explicitly says the section is not official. You calling this evidence is extremely dishonest, I must say. For someone who criticizes people for bringing up non-canon material, I'm very surprised you'd even consider this feasible for your argument. I really hope you're not intentionally being that ignorant for the sake of your own headcanon.

[Teriz]

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.

As stated, the totem had a number of issues, and was also limited in a variety of ways. Totems were geared towards utility, if turrets are geared towards DPS, then that opens up a wide variety of possible gameplay. Remember, there is no Shaman spec dedicated to totems. You could have a Tinker spec dedicated entirely to turrets.

Some examples:

- Cooldowns and talents that increase the turret's abilities (multi-shot for AoE, Increased rate of fire, allow them to move like robots, increased damage, etc.)
- Possible resource benefits like the Salvager mechanic from HotS that leaves a bonus after the device expires
- Passive cooldowns that effect the Tinker, such as Protective Frenzy that increases attack speed if one of your devices is attacked and destroyed
- Focus fire ability that makes all turrets target a specific enemy
- Turrets gaining the ability to copy a specific attack (ala Turrets in HotS being able to use Dethlazor )

So yeah, you can make an entire spec dedicated to turret creation and maintenance. I think that would be the most effective way to give the class ranged physical DPS without overlapping too heavily with Hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry but I can't stand the idea of such an ugly class roaming Azeroth. It's a dumb class that brings nothing to the table besides more clutter plaguing my screen.

There's enough explosions and stuff already. Give us a real class like Battlemage or Necromancer.

You say that a technology class brings nothing to the table, yet advocate for two classes that step all over the toes of existing classes in WoW? A Battlemage is a melee magic user. We have several classes that fit that archetype (Shaman, Demon Hunters, Death Knights, etc.). Even Feral and Guardian Druids can cast spells while attacking.

As for Necromancers, we already have Death Knights which can raise and manipulate the dead, and can spread plagues. That's a Necromancer to a T. We also have Warlocks which can also spread plagues and is a "dark magic user". Instead of constructing an entirely new class that utilizes the dead, why not just give Unholy Death Knights more ranged spells?

[Ielenia]

It's also gamepedia and the section explicitly says the section is not official. You calling this evidence is extremely dishonest, I must say. For someone who criticizes people for bringing up non-canon material, I'm very surprised you'd even consider this feasible for your argument. I really hope you're not intentionally being that ignorant for the sake of your own headcanon.

It's assumed that tinkers and engineer are the same, because that's the most logical conclusion one can take from looking at what the lore presents to us, inside the game and outside the game. At no point in the lore, for example, there is ever a distinction made between engineers and tinkers. At no point in the lore any difference at all between them is presented. However, at basically every corner you'll find similarities between the two. None of it is conclusive proof, true, but when we have an abundance of evidence on one side, and zero evidence on the other side, which assumption is more probable and logically sound?

[Deleted]

OF COURSE it's no distiction. Because the class isn't made (yet). Don't you guys think they can make a distinction if they wanted to?

[Rhamses]

It's assumed that tinkers and engineer are the same, because that's the most logical conclusion one can take from looking at what the lore presents to us, inside the game and outside the game. At no point in the lore, for example, there is ever a distinction made between engineers and tinkers. At no point in the lore any difference at all between them is presented. However, at basically every corner you'll find similarities between the two. None of it is conclusive proof, true, but when we have an abundance of evidence on one side, and zero evidence on the other side, which assumption is more probable and logically sound?

Didn't you just spend multiple pages arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

- - - Updated - - -

OF COURSE it's no distiction. Because the class isn't made (yet). Don't you guys think they can make a distinction if they wanted to?

No, it's just one guy, not multiple guys. I agree with you, Blizzard can create the distinction if they want to.

[Thimagryn]

It's assumed that tinkers and engineer are the same, because that's the most logical conclusion one can take from looking at what the lore presents to us

It's assumed, and it makes logical sense to you. Doesn't sound like evidence at all. You know what is also assumed and makes logical sense? Headcanon.

At no point in the lore, for example, there is ever a distinction made between engineers and tinkers. At no point in the lore any difference at all between them is presented. However, at basically every corner you'll find similarities between the two. None of it is conclusive proof, true, but when we have an abundance of evidence on one side, and zero evidence on the other side, which assumption is more probable and logically sound?

Tinkers don't formally exist in WoW. They exist as a title for NPCs, and a passing nod to what existed in WC3. You point out the most obvious and basic things that have been pointed out to you - There is no lore difference because there is no Tinker lore. What you're doing here is using absence as evidence. You are literally saying there is an absence of difference therefore they must be the same. That's not logical at all, and you're reaching further than any of the Demon Hunter deniers ever did in this respect.

None if this is evidence. How can you be this dishonest?

[Ielenia]

Didn't you just spend multiple pages arguing that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

I wonder if sometimes you reply just to troll. What you said up there doesn't even close to apply to my post you quoted, because I'm not making any statement of fact about tinkers and engineers being the same or not.

Let's try to explain this to you: there's two hypothesis. One of them has evidence and the other has no evidence. Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

[Kiradyn]

As stated, the totem had a number of issues, and was also limited in a variety of ways. Totems were geared towards utility, if turrets are geared towards DPS, then that opens up a wide variety of possible gameplay. Remember, there is no Shaman spec dedicated to totems. You could have a Tinker spec dedicated entirely to turrets.

Some examples:

- Cooldowns and talents that increase the turret's abilities (multi-shot for AoE, Increased rate of fire, allow them to move like robots, increased damage, etc.)
- Possible resource benefits like the Salvager mechanic from HotS that leaves a bonus after the device expires
- Passive cooldowns that effect the Tinker, such as Protective Frenzy that increases attack speed if one of your devices is attacked and destroyed
- Focus fire ability that makes all turrets target a specific enemy
- Turrets gaining the ability to copy a specific attack (ala Turrets in HotS being able to use Dethlazor )

So yeah, you can make an entire spec dedicated to turret creation and maintenance. I think that would be the most effective way to give the class ranged physical DPS without overlapping too heavily with Hunters.

Gotcha. That actually sounds pretty cool and unique.

[Ielenia]

It's assumed, and it makes logical sense to you. Doesn't sound like evidence at all.

I never took the assumption itself as evidence.

Tinkers don't formally exist in WoW. They exist as a title for NPCs, and a passing nod to what existed in WC3. You point out the most obvious and basic things that have been pointed out to you - There is no lore difference because there is no Tinker lore. What you're doing here is using absence as evidence. You are literally saying there is an absence of difference therefore they must be the same. That's not logical at all,

And you call me dishonest. I'm starting to think it's just projection from your part. Glad to see you've ignored all the times I've pointed out similarities between the two concepts. Once again: I'm not making 'statements of fact'. I'm just point out that if we have lots of evidence that support the possibility that two concepts are one and the same, and no evidence to the contrary, then the idea that both are one and the same is the most logically sound. I'm not using "absence of evidence", as you claim. I'm just saying that there is no evidence that counters the idea that both concepts are synonyms for each other.

[Thimagryn]

I never took the assumption itself as evidence.

No, you instead point to suggestions, like Tinkerer Goggles (who is not referred to as an Engineer in lore). You can't call this evidence when there is no lore behind Goggles that supports your claim.

Your hypothesis is entirely based on a lack of contrary evidence. That is absence of evidence. That you consider this evidence is what is entirely dishonest. You are using an argument of ignorance; you assume that Tinkers and Engineers are the same based on the lack of any contrary lore, knowing fully well that the Tinker itself has no formal lore.

Using suggestions which are entirely neutral and calling them evidence for your claim is dishonest. Consider that there is no contradiction to Tinkerer Goggles' quest lore if he was formally a Tinker class. There is nothing mutually exclusive to being Engineer in his lore.

[-Joker-]

"No evidence"? Really? You really see nothing wrong with "hand-waving" my entire post, ignoring the evidence I provide, and claim I'm presenting "no evidence"?

Except the Titans are dead, genius.

It's your job to present the evidence of your claims, buddy. Not mine. You claimed it exists, then you are the one who has to show it exists.

Maybe they're dead... maybe they're not. They would not be the first thing on Azeroth assumed dead only to turn up under extreme circumstance. Given that Sargeras is a Titan, albeit a dark one, technically they are not dead.

- - - Updated - - -

OF COURSE it's no distiction. Because the class isn't made (yet). Don't you guys think they can make a distinction if they wanted to?

There are those among us who feel they can't. Sad really.

[Ielenia]

Tinkerer Goggles (who is not referred to as an Engineer in lore).

If he was, we would have definitive proof that the two are one and the same and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The thing is, there is evidence that points out that he is likely to be an enginner considering that he is the one that shows you how to prepare an engineering building, and teaches you engineering.

But my case is not built upon a single piece of evidence, but upon a bucket-load of evidence that point in the general direction that both concepts are one and the same.

Your hypothesis is entirely based on a lack of contrary evidence.

Again with the dishonesty, ignoring all the times I point out their similarities.

[Valysar]

Tinkerbell ?