View Poll Results: What is the probability that the Tinker can be the next class ( IYO)

Voters
1260. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0%

    660 52.38%
  • 0-10%

    189 15.00%
  • 10-20%

    58 4.60%
  • 20-30%

    51 4.05%
  • 30-40%

    30 2.38%
  • 40-50%

    58 4.60%
  • 50-60%

    48 3.81%
  • 60-70%

    34 2.70%
  • 70-80%

    38 3.02%
  • 80-90%

    25 1.98%
  • 90-100%

    69 5.48%
Page 21 of 121 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
22
23
31
71
... LastLast
  1. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Its only a title if you're sharing the same abilities. The Engineering profession isn't a class, and it doesn't share abilities with Siegecrafters, Mekgineers, or Tinkers.
    It's just a title. Titles don't mean power, titles don't mean abilities. Where have you ever taken the notion that titles mean abilities?

    Which is BS because your entire argument revolves around the notion that the Engineering profession takes all of the design space of a technology class.
    And it does.

    There's no kegs in my Monk's backpack.
    There are in mine.

    Gnomes don't create shredders. Goblins don't build mechastriders. Goblins prefer a more chemical bent in their tech. Gnomes prefer more electrical-based tech.
    Are you telling me that, in the world of Azeroth, in the lore, if I approach a goblin engineer with the mechanostrider schematic, and pay him to make one, he won't be able to do it? Or if I approach a goblin with a shredder schematic, they won't be able to built it? Of course they will.

    With the magic is different. A mage is unable to cast holy magic. A priest is unable to cast elemental magic. A shaman is unable to cast shadow magic. A warlock cannot cast nature magic. And so on.

    The Iron Horde's tech is based around the Iron Star which was invented by Helix Blackfuse, but has little to do with Goblin tech.
    Right. Teach goblin engineering and they automatically will know a different kind of engineering. Wrong. If you teach them goblin engineering, they'll know and use goblin engineering.

    So no, they're not the same thing. Hell, you could have all 6 of those tech types build a flying machine, and all 6 would be vastly different from each other.
    That 'vastly different thing' is simply a matter of artistic taste of the engineer. Any kind of engineering will be able to build any kind of 'flying machine' built by the other 'sub-sections' of engineering if they had the schematic. Simple as that.

    Your argument was thoroughly debunked.
    About enchanting? Yes, it was. About everything else? Not even close.

  2. #402
    Why would they turn a profession into a whole class? The whole concept is just super lame. Whats next a blacksmith class?

  3. #403
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Yig View Post
    Oh look, it's Yig.

    And yet we can't have demonic melee fighters, because demons are the sole property of warlocks, according to the same people saying there is more nuance to technological themes than demonic themes. The special pleading and hair splitting is just a graveyard of opinions on this forum filled with thousands of desecrated analogies.
    Two entirely different things. Warlocks are already demonic melee fighters while in Dark Apotheosis. Also Warlock is a class and had several DH abilities. The Engineering profession is not a class, and has none of the Tinker abilities.

  4. #404
    I voted 0%.
    I just dont see the playable aspect of a 'tinker'. Considering the definition of what a tinker is... It's a fixer upper. Meaning something was broken or already created. Engineering is the aspect of creating, so would tinkers just fix engineers creations? Only way this would be viable is if the tinker had the engineering profession or was an engineer himself.
    So what does a Tinker tink for this to work? Please help me understand.
    It would be cool if they tinkered the armor or weapons of players, creating a new role "support" but doubt they would implement something like this.

  5. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    That's because they are different classes. They have different design space because they are different classes. This is no different than saying a Warrior and a Mage also have different design space, because classes are autonomous from each other and are not meant to be compared. They provide their own experiences, guided by gameplay, not theme. Theme does not have any influence over Design Space.

    Yet when we talk about Theme specifically, there is no way a Technology class can avoid sharing the same theme with Engineering. Technology itself is that theme.
    Why would this be an issue? No one complains about Enchanting sharing a thematic overlap with Mages.

    Thing is....in addition to this, you are kinda assuming that the class will be a Tinker. Now...Tinker conjures up images of a wild eyed crazy inventor. Someone who actually creates the engineering marvels.

    But a class? A class wouldn't be creating the tech. Certainly not as a primary function. The class would be a user. Not a creator. Creation is the function of the profession.

    Put it another way...take the gunman, steam warrior and sapper classes. Link them to the engineering profession - beyond a "tech" theme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yig View Post
    And yet we can't have demonic melee fighters, because demons are the sole property of warlocks, according to the same people saying there is more nuance to technological themes than demonic themes. The special pleading and hair splitting is just a graveyard of opinions on this forum filled with thousands of desecrated analogies.
    Yes - you can't have demon hunters. And for the same reason you won't get these different tech flavor classes. The class concept works for one class. There is no "Caster" themed class....there are caster classes each with theme own theme. You can ask for tech to go the same way - either a straightforward single tech class, or a diversified class structure where the underlying tech theme is broken into different specialisations.

    The latter was done for Mages, Warlocks and Priests. Instead of a single class with DPS, Pet DPS and heal trees Blizzard made each one a class. Same choice with tech....

    There is no hair splitting here. There is not even a need for the same decision to be made.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2014-02-22 at 12:14 AM.

  6. #406
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightsorrow12 View Post
    I voted 0%.
    I just dont see the playable aspect of a 'tinker'. Considering the definition of what a tinker is... It's a fixer upper. Meaning something was broken or already created. Engineering is the aspect of creating, so would tinkers just fix engineers creations? Only way this would be viable is if the tinker had the engineering profession or was an engineer himself.
    So what does a Tinker tink for this to work? Please help me understand.
    It would be cool if they tinkered the armor or weapons of players, creating a new role "support" but doubt they would implement something like this.
    The tech class wouldn't even need to be called "Tinker". Tinker is just there as a generic name because of the hero from WC3.

    Artificer, Gearmaster, Inventor, Siegecrafter, Mekgineer, Technician, or Mechanic works just the same.

  7. #407
    We all know, it's all about the artificer.

    https://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/e...s_epg_0525.jpg
    http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/b...6607337672.jpg

    too big, I'll try to resize them
    pre-ordering recommendations: from all over the place

  8. #408
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The tech class wouldn't even need to be called "Tinker". Tinker is just there as a generic name because of the hero from WC3.

    Artificer, Gearmaster, Inventor, Siegecrafter, Mekgineer, Technician, or Mechanic works just the same.
    The trouble is....Tinker sees to be the best name there is. However...its also likely to give a fairly misleading idea of what the lass actually is. It isn't an inventor or creator. That's the Engineering prof and the name Tinker just invites comparison.

    Meanwhile, a class name such as Commando or Operative might be more descriptive of the classes role, ability and feel but it also doesn't have a tech vibe.

    EJL
    Last edited by Talen; 2014-02-22 at 01:38 AM.

  9. #409
    Stood in the Fire stuartj1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland. It's got a castle and stuff.
    Posts
    488
    By the power of Grayskull we do not need a new class. It's already bad enough trying to balance the ones we already have without adding in new ones.

  10. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by stuartj1992 View Post
    By the power of Grayskull we do not need a new class. It's already bad enough trying to balance the ones we already have without adding in new ones.
    We didn't need Monks or Death Knights either.

    There's a benefit and desire in adding new classes that goes beyond need however. New looks, new concepts, the ability to play an avatar that you really like...

    Overall, I'd agree we're just about at the end of adding new classes. The point of DR has been reached. I think there is room for maybe one more baseline class to be added but I honestly don't see more. I'd anticipate further work would be via Advanced classes of some sort, or new specs rather than classes

    EJL

  11. #411
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    We didn't need Monks or Death Knights either.

    There's a benefit and desire in adding new classes that goes beyond need however. New looks, new concepts, the ability to play an avatar that you really like...

    Overall, I'd agree we're just about at the end of adding new classes. The point of DR has been reached. I think there is room for maybe one more baseline class to be added but I honestly don't see more. I'd anticipate further work would be via Advanced classes of some sort, or new specs rather than classes

    EJL
    I feel like there's a spot open for a class that builds resources at range and expends them in melee. It's been awhile since I went through all the specs, but I think this play style is still missing.

    That would work for most class types though, so it could just as well be added as a fourth spec to hunter, ranger, paladin and others as it could be the basis for a new class..
    pre-ordering recommendations: from all over the place

  12. #412
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightsorrow12 View Post
    I voted 0%.
    I just dont see the playable aspect of a 'tinker'. Considering the definition of what a tinker is... It's a fixer upper. Meaning something was broken or already created. Engineering is the aspect of creating, so would tinkers just fix engineers creations? Only way this would be viable is if the tinker had the engineering profession or was an engineer himself.
    So what does a Tinker tink for this to work? Please help me understand.
    It would be cool if they tinkered the armor or weapons of players, creating a new role "support" but doubt they would implement something like this.
    The playable aspect comes from Warcraft characters literally being called Tinkers, and the hero unit's abilities from Warcraft 3. The Tinker has a precedent in the Warcraft universe, and with the HotS abilities Blizzard has shown a very unique ability set. Unlike some others, I want the Tinker class to be a direct translation of the Warcraft hero, just like the Monk and the Death Knight were.

  13. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by Talen View Post
    Why would this be an issue? No one complains about Enchanting sharing a thematic overlap with Mages.
    EJL
    Because it's not a matter of whether it is an issue or not. Teriz specifically said Engineering does not have the same theme that a Tech class would. It's bullshit because they do share that theme.

    If someone said Enchanting doesn't use a theme of Magic, wouldn't you call someone out for saying that?

    The point extends further when he defends and tries to justify what he said by avoiding it and use strawman arguments to divert attention from a clear fallacy.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2014-02-22 at 05:54 AM.

  14. #414
    Here's the basis of my issue with tinkers:

    If a tinker is simply 'someone who uses tech', but does not create them, said tinker is nothing but a common person nothing special about it.
    If a tinker is someone who crafts gadgets to use, said tinker theme clashes too much with the engineering theme.

    And people say tinkers exist in Warcraft 3. But the problem with that is: the 'tinker' only exists in multiplayer matches. It never shows in the Campaign maps, or in the 'special campaign' for WC3 where we follow Rexxar's story. So arguing he's canon because he shows only on the multiplayer aspect of the game, which has no bearing or effect on the story campaigns, is not a fair assessment. If something does not show in the story campaigns, it cannot be considered canon.

  15. #415
    Elemental Lord Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    8,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Here's the basis of my issue with tinkers:

    If a tinker is simply 'someone who uses tech', but does not create them, said tinker is nothing but a common person nothing special about it.
    If a tinker is someone who crafts gadgets to use, said tinker theme clashes too much with the engineering theme.
    When you say "engineering theme" are you talking about the profession, or lore? The two are not the same thing. If you're talking about the lore, a class can't clash with it, because lore isn't a gameplay mechanic. Additionally, the lore supports the notion that there are advanced "engineers" who are on the level of mages, warriors, and paladins. If you're talking about the profession, the class still wouldn't clash with it because a class and a profession don't perform the same function in the game.

    And people say tinkers exist in Warcraft 3. But the problem with that is: the 'tinker' only exists in multiplayer matches. It never shows in the Campaign maps, or in the 'special campaign' for WC3 where we follow Rexxar's story. So arguing he's canon because he shows only on the multiplayer aspect of the game, which has no bearing or effect on the story campaigns, is not a fair assessment. If something does not show in the story campaigns, it cannot be considered canon.
    Here's the problem with that; The Goblin Tinker hero was the final hero to be added to WC3. It was added after the campaigns were complete, which is why you never see a Tinker hero in the game. However, Blizzard made Gazlowe a Goblin Tinker at a later point, and he appears as a Tinker in HotS.

    Furthermore, Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker hero, and he has had an effect on the general story of World of Warcraft.

  16. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Because it's not a matter of whether it is an issue or not. Teriz specifically said Engineering does not have the same theme that a Tech class would. It's bullshit because they do share that theme.
    Of course they have the same "theme" as it were. Technology. One is simply a profession. The other would be a class.

    Assuming that you can develop a unique identity around that class - and in this case, I see no reason why not - there's no reason not to use it as a class archetype.

    The fact the engineering exists wouldn't affect that at all, any more than Enchanting prevented Mages being introduced.

    I still have a problem with the Tinker name (it conjures up a very different image as a tech creator and not user, and there are the obvious links t Engineering) and I'm somewhat less than fond of the giant wavy arm look Teriz likes so much but a tech class should be no issue.

    But yeah - Engineering does have the same basic theme as tech based class would. If I thought it would work, I'd even suggest getting rid of the profession (in favor of woodworking perhaps?), dividing out the gear to other profs as necessary and then giving the remainder to the tech class as a class perk.

    EJL

  17. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Here's the basis of my issue with tinkers:

    If a tinker is simply 'someone who uses tech', but does not create them, said tinker is nothing but a common person nothing special about it.
    If a tinker is someone who crafts gadgets to use, said tinker theme clashes too much with the engineering theme.
    Didn't you agree with me that the engineering profession and engineering lore aren't one in the same?

    How could a class focused around technology clash with engineering lore?

  18. #418
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    When you say "engineering theme" are you talking about the profession, or lore? The two are not the same thing. If you're talking about the lore, a class can't clash with it, because lore isn't a gameplay mechanic. Additionally, the lore supports the notion that there are advanced "engineers" who are on the level of mages, warriors, and paladins. If you're talking about the profession, the class still wouldn't clash with it because a class and a profession don't perform the same function in the game.
    I'm talking about the engineering 'job', from which the 'profession' is a part of. The 'clash' would come from the theme. It's for that reason we don't have a profession that heals wounds with holy magic (bandages are not magic. Priests rely on holy magic to heal, first-aid users rely on knowledge of bandages and their uses). While, thematically, both do the same thing, both approach it through different means. One uses holy magic, the other uses strips of cloth and ointments.

    Engineers create and use technology they, or others, create. With the Tinker is the same thing. There is no 'different approach to the same theme' to make it avoid clashes.

    Here's the problem with that; The Goblin Tinker hero was the final hero to be added to WC3. It was added after the campaigns were complete, which is why you never see a Tinker hero in the game. However, Blizzard made Gazlowe a Goblin Tinker at a later point, and he appears as a Tinker in HotS.

    Furthermore, Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker hero, and he has had an effect on the general story of World of Warcraft.
    Whether or not the Goblin Tinker hero was the last hero introduced to Warcraft 3, it still stands as a fact that he has no presence at all in the story campaigns. Which is why he shouldn't be considered canon to the Warcraft lore, simply because 'he was in Warcraft 3'. And your claim that 'Gelbin Mekkatorque' being a 'tinker' hero comes from WoWWiki, a source that, as you pointed out, is not reliable, when I used the same website against your claims before. You can't have it both ways.

  19. #419
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I'm talking about the engineering 'job', from which the 'profession' is a part of. The 'clash' would come from the theme. It's for that reason we don't have a profession that heals wounds with holy magic (bandages are not magic. Priests rely on holy magic to heal, first-aid users rely on knowledge of bandages and their uses). While, thematically, both do the same thing, both approach it through different means. One uses holy magic, the other uses strips of cloth and ointments.

    Engineers create and use technology they, or others, create. With the Tinker is the same thing. There is no 'different approach to the same theme' to make it avoid clashes.


    Whether or not the Goblin Tinker hero was the last hero introduced to Warcraft 3, it still stands as a fact that he has no presence at all in the story campaigns. Which is why he shouldn't be considered canon to the Warcraft lore, simply because 'he was in Warcraft 3'. And your claim that 'Gelbin Mekkatorque' being a 'tinker' hero comes from WoWWiki, a source that, as you pointed out, is not reliable, when I used the same website against your claims before. You can't have it both ways.
    Enchanting and tailoring both have a few spell procs categorized as Holy, some of which do, in fact, heal. Others do things like increase damage against undead, or boost healing power. Known properties of holy magic. Which is one of the reasons these professions are popular among priests. They make things priests can wear and they do things which would make a priest look more like a priest. The themes are complementary. It's only when you get two themes mixed together that have no business being mixed - like, say, a druid engineer - that you have an actual clash.

    For the record, my main is a druid engineer, and is that way specifically because I wanted that clash.

    Also, wowpedia lists Mekkatorque as a Tinker too. And wowpedia is the reliable one.

  20. #420
    Quote Originally Posted by Drilnos View Post
    Enchanting and tailoring both have a few spell procs categorized as Holy, some of which do, in fact, heal. Others do things like increase damage against undead, or boost healing power. Known properties of holy magic. Which is one of the reasons these professions are popular among priests.
    But that is not the entire theme of enchanting or tailoring. Enchanting is not about using holy magic to heal or damage undead. Tailoring is not all about holy spell procs or boosts to holy magic.

Posting Permissions

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