Tinker Discussion Thread

[Gothicshark]

He's saying that he's in favor of it if it's done right. I'm not seeing what's ambiguous about that.

It does support the argument that Tinkers have a real chance at class inclusion. Tone is not a huge design hurdle to hop through.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, we're talking about the farmers of Farshire fighting the undead and the Shaman class (which you keep ignoring). Are you incapable of answering a simple question?

It's okay, we all get it; actually answering that question makes your entire dumb argument null and void.

1. He's politely saying No. Something Blizzard does a lot. With the added under-punch of whimsical, he is implying that they do not consider it a serious idea.

2. Mechanics say they are all level (whatever) warriors. Lore says they are Farmers.

3. Lore says All Engineers are Tinkers, and all tinkers are Engineers, Lore makes special note that Most if not all Gnomes and Goblins are Engineers, and Tinkers. Mechanics say Tinker is a profession or Mounted Combat, and Not all Gnomes and Goblins have that Profession. Which is why Goblins have the racial engineering toys.

4. Lore not equal to in game mechanics.

[Solzan Nemesis]

Class Tinker:
- Medium-Heavy passive Defense
- Tank Spec - Increased Passive and Active Defense, Multi-Pet Utility.
- Healing Spec - Healing, Multi-Pet Utility.
- DPS Spec - Ranged, Multi-Pet Utility.

So here is the one part where me and everyone else who wants Tinkers differs. I do not think they should be tanks. I think it should be. Melee DPS, Range DPS (petless hunter), and healer. Yes I want the melee DPS to be a steam warrior and yes I want them to smash things with claws, drills, and missiles. However tank? No. I am wired like that. Well that and I do not think we need another tank after Brewmasters.

[Rhamses]

Only a few classes exist in Lore, As we know them.

Shaman commune with the elements to use their abilities, players have specs and power lists. So the Shaman as we play them is nothing like what Thrall does.

Warlocks in Lore are mages who use fel/demonic energy and consort with demons.

Because of this your spec is not in lore, and your class is only marginally based on what is in lore.

Lore states that only a few Hearthstones exists, yet every Player Character has them. Lore and Mechanics are usually separate things.

I'll use Demon Hunters as an Example, Illidan was a mage, he had studied a bit of Druidic magic, but preferred the Arcane. In his quest for power he turned Fel Energy against itself and became a melee combat specialist. By the most basic Lore he is in fact a Melee Warlock. However, mechanically he is very different than a caster, he uses stealth, dual welds swords, and does high Melee DPS.

Basically Lore and Game Mechanics are two separate things. Hell even special visual effects are not the same as mechanics.

Using current resources, and mechanics.

Class A: Has Auto Melee attacks, uses a resource that recovers slowly over time, which can be used for strong melee attacks, which apply a resource on the target which can be spent for a stronger attack.

That is a basic description of a class thinking only of mechanics.

So when looking at 'Tinker' here is what I hear.

Class Tinker:
- Medium-Heavy passive Defense
- Tank Spec - Increased Passive and Active Defense, Multi-Pet Utility.
- Healing Spec - Healing, Multi-Pet Utility.
- DPS Spec - Ranged, Multi-Pet Utility.

This is not looking at lore, or visual themes. Now I point out...

Class Shaman:
- Medium-Heavy passive Defense
- DPS Spec - Ranged Magic DPS, added utility with pets
- Healing Spec - Pet aided Healing
- DPS Spec - With Melee options, Multi-Pet Utility.

Hunter:
- 3x's DPS Spec - Ranged, Pet DPS.

You can see when you break it down, it really doesn't add anything new, and the problem is neither does Demon Hunter, or any suggested class.

When you put it that way, nothing would anything new.

What about mechanics like Pocket Factory, Gravity Bomb, Robo-Goblin (WC3), Robo Goblin (HotS), and Salvage? Those are mechanics that are largely unheard of in WoW and would add a new dimension to class gameplay.

[Skeppio]

Another thought on the topic of "Tinkers are too similar to Engineering": Why not add some Siegecrafter Blackfuse-inspired abilities, like the razor blades, crawler bombs, etc? Those certainly don't conflict with any currently playable class/profession, and it'd be fun as hell driving a mech that can fire sawblades.

[Ielenia]

Nope. It can fire bullets and missiles from the armor.

It needs to equip and use a weapon. No more stat sticks for non-spellcasters.

[Haven]

Because tech, rifles, and steampunk.

[Talen]

In the lore, there is no difference.

So - if we called it a Hammer tank pilot you'd have no trouble with it whatsoever? That is the big reason the class can never be? You don't like the name?

Except lorewise, they will be.

Lorewise, at best, they'll be engineers who specialise heavily into Hammer Tanks...to the point they can do nothing else. And that's if they are brought in. And that's if they are called Tinkers. Odds are fair, IMO, that even if the were brought in the class wouldnt be called tinkers. It is a useful shortcut until then as everyone knows what the Tinker class actually is and represents.

It's almost like you didn't bother to read my post before replying to it. But go ahead and call me obtuse while completely failing to make an actual counterargument. You're in no real "dnager" of insulting me, here.

I did read it. Its the usual nonsense people bring up. "I don't like the name so scrap the class".

A class called Tinker would be a Hammer Tank driver. Nothing more. There is no overlap with Engineering and if there is a lore based overlap, the argument where this actually matters and has an impact has yet to be put forward.

"Here's a Tinker. He built his hammer Tank. Don't ask him to do anything else - he's spent so long building it he's forgotten everything else he once knew about Engineering" or whatever other reason you want.

People make the same type of distinctions in lore all the time...lorewise, all classes should able to do something but can't. What's wrong with this argument you and others put forward is the way it is treating Tinkers like a special case....that problems and issues ignored with other existing classes suddenly become of monumental importance for this concept.

All you need do is say you don't like the concept of a Tinker or Tech based class. When you start putting forward objections other classes also have but ignore, then you - and others - are just throwing up objections for the sake of objecting.

Lore and theme based overlaps don't matter between professions and classes now, that exist and are in game now...why should we expect them to do so when its Tinkers and not mages or Priests? I'm not a fan of the Tinker concept (I think it looks silly and risks undermining some of the flavor of the game - albeit ina very minor way) , but I'm not going to say it can't exist because some people think engineering is spelt T-I-N-K-E-R or state that Tinkers should be the one and only class to take lore/theme overlap with professions into account.

EJL

[Gothicshark]

When you put it that way, nothing would anything new.

What about mechanics like Pocket Factory, Gravity Bomb, Robo-Goblin (WC3), Robo Goblin (HotS), and Salvage? Those are mechanics that are largely unheard of in WoW and would add a new dimension to class gameplay.

Those things are artistic design, what do they actually do. They are not mechanics. Are they Resource building, buff, debuff, Heal, Damage, or Aggro control. Which is what every spell in every game does.

The look and feel is art not class.

And Yes, we have all bases covered at this point, we do not need a new class.

[Dispraise]

I did read it. Its the usual nonsense people bring up. "I don't like the name so scrap the class".

You obviously didn't, or you just failed to process it. Personally, I don't care which. I never said a damn thing about the name. Call them flip-flappity bootjigglers for all I care. Doesn't change a thing.

[Talen]

And Yes, we have all bases covered at this point, we do not need a new class.

We didn't need the Monk or DK either but we got them.

There are several factors in play which determine if a class can be added. Does it add anything? Is there a niche for it? Can Blizzard balance the class successfully.

That last one is the important one here. IF Blizzard feels it can balance a class then it can add one. Right now? It seems Blizzard is one the edge of what it feels it can balance using he resources it has available. It might be able to add one more class, especially f the ability purge goes ahead. And if it can't balance a 12th class...it won't.

EJL

[FAILoZOFF]

there are 11 classes right now... such an uneven number... 12 would be great to just leave wow classes at.
Most obvious choices for next one would be trinker or demon hunter... i would prefer tinkers any day.

Why are people so obsessed with demon hunter at all? They don't even bring anything unigue or cool. Sure you can make it all up, simmilar to monks, but in case of monks it actually turned out to be pretty nice (as there was room for that... a lot of it in fact) even tho they are loaded with pretty "random" abilities just because they didn't have any archetype. DH don't have many established abilities and those that "were" are now spreaded among other classes. Other than that there are 3(?) things that make DH for all we know: they use glaives (type of weapon that does not exist in WoW actually, bar warglaives but... well), run around elves with bare chest and with some fancy tatoos?? Thats it?? And you want to build a class upon it?
Would you like a DH that would use weapons other than glaives? Imagine your "precious" DH wielding random axe and by gear looking like any other rogue/druid/monk? Using some made up, demonic themed spells (like locks) with a playstyle simmilar to DK (in a sense using both melee and spells)? Whats left about "orginal concept" (there is none, other than just bare chested elf with tatoos using glaives) DH?
And what about a theme and name? Sure there might be an demon expansion ahead of us, but really, most of our time we spend fighting all other "evils" be it humanoids, best elementals and undeads. Look at DKs and how they lost their "these" right after WotLK and they werent created specify to fight undeads or anything in particular, unlike DEMON hunters.

As previously mentioned If anything with DH i'd prefer locks to have 4th spec named DH or smth that would be a melee fighter. Lets keep whole demon theme together.
Illidan was a mage that became lock that later became DK... would fit as well.

No no no no. We don't really need them. We are at 11 class now. Number 12 would be perfect to just left wow classes at. So we have 1 spot and spending it on DH that bring NOTHING feels wasteful. I would like some sort of tinkers to appear instead. They have "clean" theme page yet, with potential to do anything about them.

They can use ranged weapons, wear mail/plate armor. Tank, heal dps and support - really anything would fit. There is no other class utilizing technologu to fight that would overlap with them. They are a perfect choice, unlike DH's....

[fixx]

there are 11 classes right now... such an uneven number... 12 would be great to just leave wow classes at.

What's wrong with 11? It's a pretty prime number, lot more unique than 12.

I would like some sort of tinkers to appear instead. They have "clean" theme page yet, with potential to do anything about them.
There is no other class utilizing technologu to fight that would overlap with them.

Instead there's whole primary profession engineering that that overlaps 100% with tinkering class. Only difference between the two at the moment is the tuning of dps numbers.

[Riordrian]

why would we need any new class ? it´s a clusterf*ck every damn expansion untill blizzard balances some OP sh*t (even without new classes)
a new class just for the sake of a new class is the least thing we need. just let them"balance" the current ones and end it there.

[Denkou]

why would we need any new class ? it´s a clusterf*ck every damn expansion untill blizzard balances some OP sh*t (even without new classes)
a new class just for the sake of a new class is the least thing we need. just let them"balance" the current ones and end it there.

I agree with this x100. While I understand that people want a new class, I think a lot of people don't think about how insanely difficult it would be to not just create this class, but also balance it with the currently existing classes.

[Kiradyn]

Wow, the anti-Tinker people are just as bad as the pro-tinker people. There's no reason why this thread should be at 300+ responses.

And to those who keep saying its only a handful of people, the pro-tinker count on that class poll is at 138, still second to only Demon Hunters. That's more than a handful of people.

[Revi]

I agree with this x100. While I understand that people want a new class, I think a lot of people don't think about how insanely difficult it would be to not just create this class, but also balance it with the currently existing classes.

Well, wow has never really been perfectly balanced, I just don't think another class is going to make much of a difference. Monks didn't.

[Rhamses]

Those things are artistic design, what do they actually do. They are not mechanics. Are they Resource building, buff, debuff, Heal, Damage, or Aggro control. Which is what every spell in every game does.

The look and feel is art not class.

And Yes, we have all bases covered at this point, we do not need a new class.

See, I disagree with this. Sure mechanics only operate under certain perimeters, but new classes can find new and interesting ways of doing them.

Take Monks for example. They're an agility tank like Druids, and utilize active mitigation like Druids and DKs, but their method of tanking is completely different from Druid and DK, and pretty darn unique to boot. Yet they're still doing aggro control and damage mitigation. You can't just simply say that a new class would have damage mitigation and damage control and automatically assume that its going to be just like what we have now. The devil is in the details.

So while other tanks have their forms of damage mitigation, the Monk uses the Dizzying Haze mechanic to make their target "drunk". This increases their chance to miss, reduces their movement speed, and gives them a chance to hit themselves. Meanwhile, the Monk has Keg Smash, Stagger, Shuffle, Gift of the Ox, Elusive Brew, Guard, and Purifying Brew to help it tank. Again, all of that falls under damage mitigation. However, there isn't another class dropping miniature healing spheres as it tanks.

If I told you back in 2011 that I wanted a leather-wearing, agility-based, DWing, Energy-using class that uses martial arts, you'd automatically say "No way! We already have Rogues for that!" Yet here we are 3 years later, and Monks feel and behave WAY differently than Rogues do.

What about the Tinker? Blizzard can easily devise new methods of doing buff, debuff, healing, damage, tanking, etc. and make the Tinker feel far different than existing classes. Why?

Because the Tinker is using a theme and design space that no other class in the game has. So, everything it does will feel different than existing classes by default.

This btw is why I mentioned those Tinker abilities that everyone glosses over when discussing this potential class. What other class in the game can produce an army of robots from its own miniature factory? What other class can summon a gravity bomb that sucks you towards the center and then explodes when you hit it? What other class can allow you to turn into a mechanical construct or a robot?

None, that's what. And that's why the Tinker is such a popular concept.

[fixx]

Because the Tinker is using a theme and design space that no other class in the game has. So, everything it does will feel different than existing classes by default.

Because the tinkering is using a theme and design space already existing crafting profession has, everything will feel exactly the same as all those millions of characters with engineering skill.

[Rhamses]

Because the tinkering is using a theme and design space already existing crafting profession has, everything will feel exactly the same as all those millions of characters with engineering skill.

False. A DK with Engineering who is tanking a raid would be using Icy Touch, Plague Strike, Death and Decay, Blood Shield, Rune Strike and other DK mechanics to tank.

A Tinker (using Teriz's design) would be tanking using the hammer tank's fist for melee, pocket factory, grenades, rockets, Overload, Sawblades, and other Tinker mechanics to tank.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ss-Idea-(Long)

[Captain Falkan]

A Tinker (using Teriz's design) would be tanking using the hammer tank's fist for melee, pocket factory, grenades, rockets, Overload, Sawblades, and other Tinker mechanics to tank.

This is agreeable.