Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Drilnos]

Fine, I'll rephrase for Rhamses:
"You're seriously not comparing the mage bombs, which are simply names for a certain trio of spells, to actual crafted, bombs, are you?"

Maybe I should point out that "craft" has the exact same connotations? "Witchcraft?" "Spellcraft?" You really seem to like to play word games from a losing starting position.

[Ielenia]

I could compare it to the Rogue's Smoke Bomb, or the functionally similar Hunter Explosive Trap (via Trap Launcher).
Either way, Engineers aren't complaining.

Engineers are not complainig because those are magical spells. And a rogue's smoke bomb is a minor overlap. Minor overlaps do not take away a whole identity. Rogues know one kind of bomb, the smoke bomb. And besides, it's also perfectly possible and plausible that the rogues to not make the bombs, but actually buy them.

[godofslack]

I could compare it to the Rogue's Smoke Bomb, or the functionally similar Hunter Explosive Trap (via Trap Launcher).

Either way, Engineers aren't complaining.

There are a lot more similarities between a hypothetical tinker bomb throw and an engineer bomb throw than any of the things listed. Like A LOT more. But, Engineers have been scaling back from bomb throws since Cataclysm and that's not changing in WoD.

[Ielenia]

And they all can benefit from arcane magic with enchanted gear.

What would separate a tinker from a hunter with gun, or a warrior with that Wrath sawblade thing, would be thematic and gameplay nuances only. No different to what separates warrior from Death Knight (or any other two classes really).

Actually, nothing differentiates a tinker from a hunter engineer with a gun or a warrior engineer with a sawblade.

[Teriz]

Actually, nothing differentiates a tinker from a hunter engineer with a gun or a warrior engineer with a sawblade.

Except the hammer tank, pocket factory, Cluster Rockets, Robo, Deth Lazor, X-plosion Bomb, Salvage, Gravo-Bomb 3000, and Engineering upgrade.

[Ielenia]

Except the hammer tank, pocket factory, Cluster Rockets, Robo, Deth Lazor, X-plosion Bomb, Salvage, Gravo-Bomb 3000, and Engineering upgrade.

Erm, engineering upgrade exists in the engineering profession. It's called 'tinkering'. And engineering is full of bombs and rockets.

But let me ask you something: Just what is the Tinker's theme? If it's a charater that creates technology, any engineering character has that covered, NPC and Player alike. If it's a character that uses technology, then any NPC and Player characters have that covered, engineers and non-engineers.

[hrugner]

Maybe I should point out that "craft" has the exact same connotations? "Witchcraft?" "Spellcraft?" You really seem to like to play word games from a losing starting position.

Sure, but while equivocation makes for some good old timey comedy, it seldom provides value in a discussion. However... We should definitely be removing the fishing secondary profession and add it to mages, since they both cast very well. Oh! and reforging should have been a tailoring skill since they tailor gear to suit the players needs!

[Deleted]

Engineers are not complainig because those are magical spells. And a rogue's smoke bomb is a minor overlap. Minor overlaps do not take away a whole identity. Rogues know one kind of bomb, the smoke bomb. And besides, it's also perfectly possible and plausible that the rogues to not make the bombs, but actually buy them.

There it is. Lovely.

aaaand adieu.

[Drilnos]

Sure, but while equivocation makes for some good old timey comedy, it seldom provides value in a discussion. However... We should definitely be removing the fishing secondary profession and add it to mages, since they both cast very well. Oh! and reforging should have been a tailoring skill since they tailor gear to suit the players needs!

I don't really like the word games myself. A bomb is a bomb, whether it's called a bomb or not. Living Bomb turns the target into something that explodes, aka a bomb, which is exactly what it says on the tin. Engineers make bombs, mages make bombs, rogues make bombs, hunters make bombs. If Tinkers also made bombs it wouldn't subtract from engineers anything more than it subtracted from any of the others. Explosions are not the sole provenance of one profession, and nor should they be. Explosions generated from chemical reactions aren't either, and nor should they be.

This entire idea that bombs would have to be taken from engineering in order to be given to Tinkers is built on a huge pile of assumptions with no historical precedent. They wouldn't remove anything from engineering if this class happened, with bombs and rockets and turrets and all the fixings. Not one single thing. You can take that to the bank.

[Lime]

0-10%

Simply because I'm one of those people who don't believe in 0%/100% most of the time.

As for why, it just doesn't seem like an interesting enough class to me.

[hrugner]

I don't really like the word games myself. A bomb is a bomb, whether it's called a bomb or not. Living Bomb turns the target into something that explodes, aka a bomb, which is exactly what it says on the tin. Engineers make bombs, mages make bombs, rogues make bombs, hunters make bombs. If Tinkers also made bombs it wouldn't subtract from engineers anything more than it subtracted from any of the others. Explosions are not the sole provenance of one profession, and nor should they be. Explosions generated from chemical reactions aren't either, and nor should they be.

This entire idea that bombs would have to be taken from engineering in order to be given to Tinkers is built on a huge pile of assumptions with no historical precedent. They wouldn't remove anything from engineering if this class happened, with bombs and rockets and turrets and all the fixings. Not one single thing. You can take that to the bank.

There's a difference between word games and control of language. If you use two meanings of one word in the same sentence, like bomb in this case, you end up with a logically inconsistent sentence. Flame lash doesn't create whip, shadow bolt doesn't produce a quarrel, void walkers don't have legs... not all words are used literally; and for most people it's clear when.

Hunters do have a bunch of tech overlap though, that's perfectly fair.

I'm not talking about removing anything; I'm talking about making two versions of the same thing causing them to be differentiated only by power; and how that would interact with player perceptions.

[Talen]

It's funny that you mention design space problems, yet even Ghostcrawler does not the Rogue as one of the classes that would overlap.

140 characters and he'd already listed the Warlock, DK, warrior and hunter. You think pointing out a 5 or 6 class overlap would drive the point home more than a mere 4 classes overlapping?

EJL

[Teriz]

Erm, engineering upgrade exists in the engineering profession. It's called 'tinkering'.

Link?

And engineering is full of bombs and rockets

But not those bombs and rockets. There's also no lasers, no hammer tank, no gun turrets, and no ability to transform into a living machine.

But let me ask you something: Just what is the Tinker's theme? If it's a charater that creates technology, any engineering character has that covered, NPC and Player alike. If it's a character that uses technology, then any NPC and Player characters have that covered, engineers and non-engineers.

They create technology. The reason every engineer can't create what the Tinker creates is because the tech is too advanced for the average engineer to create.

[Ielenia]

Link?

Really? But ok. We have the engineering upgrade to add a rocket launcher to your gloves, also to add nitro boosts to your belt, there's also the attachment to your cloak to make it fly like a glider and so on and so forth. All engineering upgrades to your gear.

But not those bombs and rockets. There's also no lasers, no hammer tank, no gun turrets, and no ability to transform into a living machine.

Those are bombs, and your tinker's bombs are bombs. They do the same thing: explode.

They create technology. The reason every engineer can't create what the Tinker creates is because the tech is too advanced for the average engineer to create.

If they create technology, then they are engineers. To say their technology is too advanced nobody else in the world can recreate is dumb nonsense because the only tech the Azerothians cannot recreate is Titan tech, but even that they're working on understanding. Everything else can be recreated. The Iron Star can be recreated. The Iron Juggernaut can be recreated. Your 'tinker' is no more advanced than the rest of the engineers around Azeroth, and you have shown no evidence of such other than your own 'because I said so'.

[Teriz]

Really? But ok. We have the engineering upgrade to add a rocket launcher to your gloves, also to add nitro boosts to your belt, there's also the attachment to your cloak to make it fly like a glider and so on and so forth. All engineering upgrades to your gear.

Yeah, that's not Engineering upgrade. Engineering upgrade is a passive that enhances Tinker abilities. It's not an attachment to an armor item.

Those are bombs, and your tinker's bombs are bombs. They do the same thing: explode.

Actually Xplodium Charge isn't a bomb, it's a charge. Grav-o-bomb 3000 sucks enemies towards it and explodes on a short cooldown. No engineering bomb does that.

I guess we're just going to ignore the other stuff Tinkers can do eh?

If they create technology, then they are engineers. To say their technology is too advanced nobody else in the world can recreate is dumb nonsense because the only tech the Azerothians cannot recreate is Titan tech, but even that they're working on understanding. Everything else can be recreated. The Iron Star can be recreated. The Iron Juggernaut can be recreated. Your 'tinker' is no more advanced than the rest of the engineers around Azeroth,

Then where's the engineer that can reproduce the Tinker's technology?

and you have shown no evidence of such other than your own 'because I said so'.

How ironic since you have yet to provide evidence for anything you've said.

Here's my evidence;
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml
http://www.heroesnexus.com/heroes/5-gazlowe

Where's yours?

[Talen]

Really? But ok. We have the engineering upgrade to add a rocket launcher to your gloves, also to add nitro boosts to your belt, there's also the attachment to your cloak to make it fly like a glider and so on and so forth. All engineering upgrades to your gear.

We also have engineering gadgets that add invisibility, slow fall and ploymorph but you aren't saying get rid of mages.
Enchanting has the same arcane theme as Mages, but noone is complaining about the overlap.
First Aid does the same thing as any healing role but are we to get rid of priests?

Simple fact?
The Tinker class would be Tech proficient. What he would not be would be an engineer. Regardless of what you call him, a Tinker players class would not be an engineer. He would not be capable of making guns, trinkets, mounts or pets.

Many NPCs are. Many PCs will not be. Mnay PCs will be Blacksmiths. Or miners. Or Herbalists.


Another simple fact? Tinkers would be a class. Engineering? Woul dstill be profession. Thematically linked by all means. But thematic links aren't much of an issue with such comparisons.

Another? A non-Tinker class using an engineering item has as much impact as a non-healer using a bandage. Thematic linkage, to be sure...but who really cares?

Regardless of what many NPC Tinkers can do, the truth is that PC Tinkers would be a Tech using class. As familiar with technology as enchanters are with the arcane.

EJL

[Ielenia]

Yeah, that's not Engineering upgrade. Engineering upgrade is a passive that enhances Tinker abilities. It's not an attachment to an armor item.

Passive or not, it is engineering upgrade no matter how you look at it.

Actually Xplodium Charge isn't a bomb, it's a charge.

You do know that 'charge' is just a measurement of explosives? So.... bombs.

Then where's the engineer that can reproduce the Tinker's technology?

All around Azeroth.

How ironic since you have yet to provide evidence for anything you've said.
Here's my evidence;
http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml
http://www.heroesnexus.com/heroes/5-gazlowe
Where's yours?

Funny how none of those so-called 'evidence' link to World of Warcraft content... And I did provide evidence. I even provided counter-evidence to your previous evidence. Of course, you ignored it.

- - - Updated - - -

We also have engineering gadgets that add invisibility, slow fall and ploymorph but you aren't saying get rid of mages.

One thing is having technology copy what magic does.

[Teriz]

Passive or not, it is engineering upgrade no matter how you look at it.

How when its nothing like it, and isn't called it?

You do know that 'charge' is just a measurement of explosives? So.... bombs.

Okay, but where's the engineering bomb that works like it?

And are we going to simply ignore everything else that a Tinker can do so that you can focus on one feature out of eleven?

All around Azeroth.

Then you should have no problem linking to a few.

Funny how none of those so-called 'evidence' link to World of Warcraft content...

Its more funny how your argument has changed. I'm still waiting for some evidence. I'm starting to doubt I'm going to get any.

[Ielenia]

How when its nothing like it, and isn't called it?

It is engineering and are upgrades. They improve the engineer's repertoire. Oh, and by the way, this just came to mind: how can you claim a Tinker is not an engineer when one of its WC3 abilities that you hold in so high regard is about engineering itself?

Okay, but where's the engineering bomb that works like it?
And are we going to simply ignore everything else that a Tinker can do so that you can focus on one feature out of eleven?
Then you should have no problem linking to a few.
Its more funny how your argument has changed. I'm still waiting for some evidence. I'm starting to doubt I'm going to get any.

My arguments haven't changed. And I'm done giving you links and examples when you're just going to completely ignore them like always and still attempt to claim I don't give any. Want examples? Go back a few pages in this thread to find them.

[Talen]

My arguments haven't changed. And I'm done giving you links and examples when you're just going to completely ignore them like always and still attempt to claim I don't give any. Want examples? Go back a few pages in this thread to find them.

Your examples are trying to posit that First Aid makes the healing role non-viable as a class role because of thematic overlap. They posit that a profession is just as important as a class. They posit that a minor degree of overlap is enough to justify killing a class concept.

Snap quiz....
Without the Engineering crafting skill, would a Tinker class....be able to build a Gun?
Without the Engineering crafting skill, would a Tinker class....be able to build a Trinket?
Without the Engineering crafting skill, would a Tinker class....be able to build a Bomb?
Without the Engineering crafting skill, would a Tinker class....be able to build a Sky Golem? Pet? Mount?

Without being a Tinker class, could an engineer....use a Hammer Tank in a raid?
Without being a Tinker class, could an engineer....use a any of the tools or abilities a Tinker class would have been given and as part of their toolkit??
Without being a Tinker class, could an engineer....do anything other than use the occasional tech gadget in a raid environment?

Does using a grenade once every minute make an engineer the equivalent of a Tinker class? If so, why is it that using a bandage once a minute doesn't make one a healer? Why using the invisibility belt doesn't render mages useless?

In short - your entire argument is worthless and has no foundation. Professions aren't classes, and any resulting overlap in theme or abilities isn't an issue because they are different.

The simple answer is that we can easily claim Tinkers aren't engineers because, in game terms, thet two are different. Tinkers are not going to get the entire Engineering profession as a class perk. If players want their Tinkers to be Engineers, they'll take the profession.

Many will. And undoubtedly, many Tinker NPCs in game are skilled engineers. But the ability to use a Hammer Tank does not neecssarily require the ability to build it. I can drive and maintain a car, but that doesn't mean I can create a Ford from scratch. Nor does it mean I can fly a plane or drive a Tank.

All the tinker class has to be is simple: Someone who can USE the equipment and abilities provided to the class. The Engineering ksill is NOT mandatory. One can argue that a Tinker who doesn't tinker is illogical. Perhaps. But if your entire point collapses when we simply change the class name from Tinker to Driver, then you don't really have a point.

EJL