Tinker Discussion Thread

[Rhamses]

And your Tinker class breaks the profession structure.

Please explain how a class would break the profession structure.

It's not strawman. You're saying lore is putty to Blizzard, therefore, everything is possible, no?

It's a strawman because you're exaggerating my position to ridiculous proportions. Changing a character's class in WoW is not similar to making Warcraft and Diablo the same universe. Your argument is preposterous.

Which means nothing to Blizzard as they can do what they want, as per your own words.

Yes they could. However which sounds more likely? Dismantling two existing classes to bring in a DH class, pissing off Rogue and Warlock players along with the rest of the community, or simply changing Gazlowe into a Tinker in WoW and giving him a claw pack?

You and Teriz, whenever you two use GC's quotes "in your favor." Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that those statements mean that the Tinker is unlikely to be implemented, but they don't want to upset their playerbase by outright saying so.

How does "[implementation] depends on treatment" equate to "never to be implemented"?

No. I simply mean that there are easier, faster, better things for them to do than trying to please everyone. Because if a Tinker class indeed is implemented, it will, very most likely, be vastly different than its WC3 counterpart. For starters, it won't have the backpack. For balancing and aesthetic reasons.

The last two class additions were very faithful to their WC3 incarnations. There's no reason to believe that a Tinker class wouldn't be just as faithful.

[Ielenia]

Please explain how a class would break the profession structure.

Just try to answer the question: "What goes to the profession, and what goes to the class?" and you'll have your answer.

Remember: the profession already deals with bombs, rockets, mechs, guns, robots and tinkering. So, again, what should go to the profession, what should go to the class? And do try to give a real answer, in-lore, to actually differentiate the two. Because, lore-wise, a 'g91 landshark' does basically almost a much damage as a mage's fireball, or a shaman's lightning bolt. Lore-wise, a bomb explodes inches from your face, you'll most likely die.

It's a strawman because you're exaggerating my position to ridiculous proportions. Changing a character's class in WoW is not similar to making Warcraft and Diablo the same universe. Your argument is preposterous.

No, that's called a hyperbole, not strawman. But the point remains: if you claim lore isn't an issue for the implementation of the Tinker because Blizzard can alter it as much as they want, then it's not an issue for the implementation of anything.

Yes they could. However which sounds more likely? Dismantling two existing classes to bring in a DH class, pissing off Rogue and Warlock players along with the rest of the community, or simply changing Gazlowe into a Tinker in WoW and giving him a claw pack?

Let me rewrite and fix what you wrote, fixing some things:

Which sounds more likely? Copying one or maybe two abilities from the Rogue and Warlock class to bring in the Demon Hunter class, bugging some rogue and warlock players while the rest of the community either goes 'meh' or 'yay DH!', or implementing a class that clashes hard with the engineering profession since both are the exact same thing, pissing off many engineers, especially those that RP they are tinkers, regardless of their class, and also pissing off the rest of the community because the new class vastly outshines their favorite class on aesthetics alone because of their mecha-backpack?

How does "[implementation] depends on treatment" equate to "never to be implemented"?

Where in the nine hells did I say that? I said the tinker is unlikely to be implemented. When has 'unlikely' became synonym to 'never'? You need to have your eyes checked.

The last two class additions were very faithful to their WC3 incarnations. There's no reason to believe that a Tinker class wouldn't be just as faithful.

Yes, because none of them had any gigantic robotic backpack that would vastly outshine the other classes for the 'cool' factor alone in aesthetics.

[Rhamses]

Just try to answer the question: "What goes to the profession, and what goes to the class?" and you'll have your answer.

And we've already been through this. The class gets abilities. The profession gets items to craft. So if we're talking about Sicco Thermaplugg, Tinkers would get Welding Beam or Steam Blast, and Engineering would get to build a mechanical battle pet based off of Thermaplugg, or get to construct a mount based on his mecha.

Remember: the profession already deals with bombs, rockets, mechs, guns, robots and tinkering. So, again, what should go to the profession, what should go to the class? And do try to give a real answer, in-lore, to actually differentiate the two. Because, lore-wise, a 'g91 landshark' does basically almost a much damage as a mage's fireball, or a shaman's lightning bolt. Lore-wise, a bomb explodes inches from your face, you'll most likely die.

You're not asking a lore question though. This is based on game mechanics, since both the professions and classes are game mechanics.

No, that's called a hyperbole, not strawman. But the point remains: if you claim lore isn't an issue for the implementation of the Tinker because Blizzard can alter it as much as they want, then it's not an issue for the implementation of anything.

No, its a strawman;

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And no, lore isn't an issue. However what you're talking about isn't lore-based, its combining two distinct Blizzard franchises into one game and saying that its cannon lore.

Which sounds more likely? Copying one or maybe two abilities from the Rogue and Warlock class to bring in the Demon Hunter class, bugging some rogue and warlock players while the rest of the community either goes 'meh' or 'yay DH!', or implementing a class that clashes hard with the engineering profession since both are the exact same thing, pissing off many engineers, especially those that RP they are tinkers, regardless of their class, and also pissing off the rest of the community because the new class vastly outshines their favorite class on aesthetics alone because of their mecha-backpack?

It would help if you gave an honest comparison instead of a heavily biased one.

For starters, We're not just talking about copying two abilities, we're also talking about copying themes and design spaces within several classes. We're also talking about introducing a class that shares a name with an existing class, and a class that brings a playstyle that is already heavily saturated within the current class lineup. Not to mention a class who's aesthetic and theme clashes mightily with the game's class structure.

Meanwhile the Tinker/Engineering similarities are completely overblown. Your notion that a class and a profession "are the exact same thing" is a logical fallacy, and you're assuming that people who RP as Tinkers would be angry as opposed to overjoyed since they can actually BE Tinkers. In short, your presentation is inaccurate and dishonest, and not even close to being objective.

Yes, because none of them had any gigantic robotic backpack that would vastly outshine the other classes for the 'cool' factor alone in aesthetics.

All the more reason to implement the Tinker into the game.

[Teriz]

Which sounds more likely? Copying one or maybe two abilities from the Rogue and Warlock class to bring in the Demon Hunter class, bugging some rogue and warlock players while the rest of the community either goes 'meh' or 'yay DH!', or implementing a class that clashes hard with the engineering profession since both are the exact same thing, pissing off many engineers, especially those that RP they are tinkers, regardless of their class, and also pissing off the rest of the community because the new class vastly outshines their favorite class on aesthetics alone because of their mecha-backpack?
.

Which is nonsense. Classes don't work in a vacuum. The DH class would have to constantly be refined and improved upon for the remainder of WoW's lifespan and never clash thematically with the Warlock, Rogue, and Hunter class. That would gimp all four classes for years to come, and be a design headache for blizzard. Ironically, all of your stupid arguments about Engineering and Tinkers actually applies to Demon Hunters and existing classes, but doesn't apply at all to Tinkers and Engineers. There are actual negative consequences to adding a DH class. The only thing you've provided as a negative consequence for adding a Tinker class is a whole lot of nothing.

Imagine that.

[Ielenia]

And we've already been through this. The class gets abilities. The profession gets items to craft. So if we're talking about Sicco Thermaplugg, Tinkers would get Welding Beam or Steam Blast, and Engineering would get to build a mechanical battle pet based off of Thermaplugg, or get to construct a mount based on his mecha.

In other words, you want to gut the engineer profession by not having them craft any more bombs, rays, guns, and leave it a simple pet-making profession?

You're not asking a lore question though. This is based on game mechanics, since both the professions and classes are game mechanics.

I am asking a lore question. You're dodging it. Engineers already get to build bombs, guns, rays, rocket and robots. So, from your previous example, the engineer would get the Welding Beam and the Steam Blast. And the pet, of course, since engineer also build pets. So what is left for the tinker? Nothing. You can't make a case for your Tinker without gutting the engineering profession and your post proves it.

No, its a strawman;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
And no, lore isn't an issue. However what you're talking about isn't lore-based, its combining two distinct Blizzard franchises into one game and saying that its cannon lore.

No, it's hyperbole.
Wikipedia is your friend: Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

It would help if you gave an honest comparison instead of a heavily biased one.

Like yours is 100% free of bias. Hah.

Meanwhile the Tinker/Engineering similarities are completely overblown. Your notion that a class and a profession "are the exact same thing" is a logical fallacy, and you're assuming that people who RP as Tinkers would be angry as opposed to overjoyed since they can actually BE Tinkers. In short, your presentation is inaccurate and dishonest, and not even close to being objective.

It's not logical fallacy. They may not be the same when you're talking about game mechanics, but this is not an issue of game mechanic. This is an issue of theme and concept. In the world of Azeroth, both are the same thing. An engineer bomb can bring down walls of a castle. An engineer tram connects two race capitals. An engineer plane take the people of Azeroth to the skies. And that is made by engineers.

With all that in mind, the engineer really is the go-to for anything technology. With all that in mind, there is very little left to base a whole class from.

All the more reason to implement the Tinker into the game.

All the less reason, you mean. The complaints for any non-Tinker player would be astronomical, demanding something similar to their favorite classes.

- - - Updated - - -

<snip>

Imagine that.

I thought you were done?

[Rhamses]

In other words, you want to gut the engineer profession by not having them craft any more bombs, rays, guns, and leave it a simple pet-making profession?

Hunters use guns and Crossbows, and have skills involving guns and crossbows. Engineering is still crafting guns and crossbows.

Your argument got shot down that quickly.

I am asking a lore question. You're dodging it. Engineers already get to build bombs, guns, rays, rocket and robots. So, from your previous example, the engineer would get the Welding Beam and the Steam Blast. And the pet, of course, since engineer also build pets. So what is left for the tinker? Nothing. You can't make a case for your Tinker without gutting the engineering profession and your post proves it.

See above.

Like yours is 100% free of bias. Hah.

Please tell me what is biased about Rogues, Hunters, and Warlocks being rendered obsolete by a DH class. That is exactly what would happen because the DH takes the best qualities of Rogues, Warlocks and Hunters and rolls them up into a cool package.

It's not logical fallacy. They may not be the same when you're talking about game mechanics, but this is not an issue of game mechanic. This is an issue of theme and concept. In the world of Azeroth, both are the same thing. An engineer bomb can bring down walls of a castle. An engineer tram connects two race capitals. An engineer plane take the people of Azeroth to the skies. And that is made by engineers.

An issue that you have yet to show to have any significant consequence beyond your personal opinion.

With all that in mind, the engineer really is the go-to for anything technology. With all that in mind, there is very little left to base a whole class from.

Not if you wish to perform a dungeon or raid-level class-role with technology.

There's also more material to construct a WoW technology class than there was to construct a WoW Monk class, because we've encountered so many tech-based bosses since Vanilla.

All the less reason, you mean. The complaints for any non-Tinker player would be astronomical, demanding something similar to their favorite classes.

Doubtful, since their classes occupy different themes and design space.

Let me also add that saying that the Tinker shouldn't be a class in WoW because "its too awesome for the game" is the dumbest argument you have presented thus far. Bravo!

[Tatzi]

One of my biggest issues is that people have been comparing the Tinker to Iron Man and Tony Stark, where as engineering is just a hobbyist.

I have never seen anything in WoW who is considered a tinker, outshine or otherwise create some technology, who is not also considered an engineer. That is my problem. There is not a single tech-user who either uses non-comparable engineering items as abilities or brand new ones, who is NOT called an engineer from a lore stand-point.

You claim that the Tinker is a genius techy who uses technology to fight, but nowhere does a canon source say that they are different or that they are better.

That's why I feel like it is useless to add. I honestly hope Blizzard will choose something new and unique for their next class.

[LilSaihah]

In other words, you want to gut the engineer profession by not having them craft any more bombs, rays, guns, and leave it a simple pet-making profession?

A class and a trade skill can dip into one another's territory. Deathknights have Runeforging which is basically Enchanting with a DK-ey twist. Monk abilities dip into Alchemy. Shaman place temporary Enchantments onto their weapons.

Sure, a tinker probably would dip into the Engineering pool of skills a bit more heavily than other classes do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a Tinker can't be abstract or even incorporated into Engineering. Lazy suggestion; all Tinkers are Engineers, like all Death Knights have Runeforging.

[Teriz]

One of my biggest issues is that people have been comparing the Tinker to Iron Man and Tony Stark, where as engineering is just a hobbyist.

I have never seen anything in WoW who is considered a tinker, outshine or otherwise create some technology, who is not also considered an engineer. That is my problem. There is not a single tech-user who either uses non-comparable engineering items as abilities or brand new ones, who is NOT called an engineer from a lore stand-point.

You claim that the Tinker is a genius techy who uses technology to fight, but nowhere does a canon source say that they are different or that they are better.

That's why I feel like it is useless to add. I honestly hope Blizzard will choose something new and unique for their next class.

The Tinker's abilities indicate that. Additionally the tech-based bosses and NPCs have wildly more advanced tech than the engineering profession has showcased. Because of that, we don't need a lore verification, it exists, we know it exists, and currently we can't partake in it. Furthermore, since the profession cannot hope to achieve that level of power, there's a wide open design space for a technology class to occupy.

Saying that everyone who works with machines and technology is an engineer, thus engineering profession represents everything engineering based is nothing more than semantic nonsense. Blizzard even shows a difference by giving powerful NPCs new titles such as Mekkgineer, Steamwarrior, Siegecrafter, and High Tinker. None of those guys are hobbyists. Siegecrafter Blackfuse's machines held off the combined armies of the Alliance and the Horde. Does that sound like a hobbyist to you, or a bad mofo that is as capable and as powerful as any other villain in WoW?

[Ielenia]

Hunters use guns and Crossbows, and have skills involving guns and crossbows. Engineering is still crafting guns and crossbows.
Your argument got shot down that quickly.

Yet their theme isn't about crafting them. As for the tinker? He crafts tech items. What, lore-wise, would differentiate a grenade made by an engineer, and a grenade made by your tinker?

Please tell me what is biased about Rogues, Hunters, and Warlocks being rendered obsolete by a DH class. That is exactly what would happen because the DH takes the best qualities of Rogues, Warlocks and Hunters and rolls them up into a cool package.

DKs and Paladins take the best qualities about warriors and they still live happily together.

Let me also add that saying that the Tinker shouldn't be a class in WoW because "its too awesome for the game" is the dumbest argument you have presented thus far. Bravo!

Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that having a player class that walks around with a big mechanic backpack with two huge arms, rocket launchers and what-have-yous would not foster jealousy and forum complaints from players of the other classes? 'Balancing' is not simply game mechanics. It's also about the aesthetics. One class can't look too much 'cooler' than the other. Which is why all classes have the same armor graphics for their armot type. Why all weapons look the same, regardless of which class is wielding them, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

A class and a trade skill can dip into one another's territory. Deathknights have Runeforging which is basically Enchanting with a DK-ey twist. Monk abilities dip into Alchemy. Shaman place temporary Enchantments onto their weapons.

I agree. But while monks 'dip' into alchemy for their brews, the tinker class concept swallows the whole engineer theme. There's no issue in minor overlaps like the monk, but a 'hostile takeover' of the theme like the Tinker, as conceptualized by these forums (i.e. Teriz), does is unviable.

Sure, a tinker probably would dip into the Engineering pool of skills a bit more heavily than other classes do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a Tinker can't be abstract or even incorporated into Engineering. Lazy suggestion; all Tinkers are Engineers, like all Death Knights have Runeforging.

'Tinker' is already incorporated into Engineering. Their profession panel has a whole section named 'Tinkering'.

[Rhamses]

Yet their theme isn't about crafting them. As for the tinker? He crafts tech items. What, lore-wise, would differentiate a grenade made by an engineer, and a grenade made by your tinker?

Why isn't it? Who's to say that Hunters can't craft crossbows and guns? We know that ancient hunters crafted their own bows. Real-life hunters are gun and bow enthusiasts and experts. Why can't a hunter craft a crossbow or a gun? What lore basis do you have to say that?

DKs and Paladins take the best qualities about warriors and they still live happily together.

The quality of a Warrior is a warrior who fights using strength, courage and willpower to overcome adversity and any foe. Magic isn't part of the equation. In fact, most Warrior themes are decidedly anti-magic, which is why Warriors have abilities like Spell Reflect.

Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that having a player class that walks around with a big mechanic backpack with two huge arms, rocket launchers and what-have-yous would not foster jealousy and forum complaints from players of the other classes? 'Balancing' is not simply game mechanics. It's also about the aesthetics. One class can't look too much 'cooler' than the other. Which is why all classes have the same armor graphics for their armot type. Why all weapons look the same, regardless of which class is wielding them, etc.

I can honestly say that what you describe wouldn't be a criteria for Blizzard to say "yeah we can't use that class because people will think its just too awesome". Not to mention that some of those aesthetics you describe would actually turn some players off completely.

[Ielenia]

The Tinker's abilities indicate that. Additionally the tech-based bosses and NPCs have wildly more advanced tech than the engineering profession has showcased. Because of that, we don't need a lore verification, it exists, we know it exists, and currently we can't partake in it. Furthermore, since the profession cannot hope to achieve that level of power, there's a wide open design space for a technology class to occupy.

It doesn't exist. Blackfuse is an engineer. He created all his tech with goblin technology. You're using game mechanics to argue something that cannot exist lore-wise. What you claim is akin to saying the Granny Smith and McIntosh apples are different kinds of fruit from each other.

Saying that everyone who works with machines and technology is an engineer, thus engineering profession represents everything engineering based is nothing more than semantic nonsense.

It's not semantic. It's the facts.

Blizzard even shows a difference by giving powerful NPCs new titles such as Mekkgineer, Steamwarrior, Siegecrafter, and High Tinker.

And that's all they are: titles

Siegecrafter Blackfuse's machines held off the combined armies of the Alliance and the Horde. Does that sound like a hobbyist to you, or a bad mofo that is as capable and as powerful as any other villain in WoW?

It sounds like an engineer using his machines to fight off those armies. And there is no proof otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Why isn't it? Who's to say that Hunters can't craft crossbows and guns? We know that ancient hunters crafted their own bows. Real-life hunters are gun and bow enthusiasts and experts. Why can't a hunter craft a crossbow or a gun? What lore basis do you have to say that?

You're comparing bows to guns? Wow. That's new low for you.

The quality of a Warrior is a warrior who fights using strength, courage and willpower to overcome adversity and any foe. Magic isn't part of the equation. In fact, most Warrior themes are decidedly anti-magic, which is why Warriors have abilities like Spell Reflect.

And yet the Paladins and Death Knights fight using strength, courage and willpower as well, on top of their extra abilities granted by the Holy light and Shadow/Frost, respectively.

Oh, and Paladins have bubbles, and DKs have anti-magic shell/zone. So... yep. Also anti-magic.

I can honestly say that what you describe wouldn't be a criteria for Blizzard to say "yeah we can't use that class because people will think its just too awesome". Not to mention that some of those aesthetics you describe would actually turn some players off completely.

Then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if the aesthetic factor isn't put into consideration as well.

[Rhamses]

You're comparing bows to guns? Wow. That's new low for you.

Engineers build crossbows.

And yet the Paladins and Death Knights fight using strength, courage and willpower as well, on top of their extra abilities granted by the Holy light and Shadow/Frost, respectively.

Oh, and Paladins have bubbles, and DKs have anti-magic shell/zone. So... yep. Also anti-magic.

Strength, courge, and willpower via Holy magic or Shadow magic. With Warriors its simply their innate physical prowess.

Think Captain America. No flashy powers, just courage, strength, and willpower. With those qualities, he's able to take down foes who appear to be way more powerful than he is.

Its the exact same theme.

Then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if the aesthetic factor isn't put into consideration as well.

It certainly is. However, I've never see a case where someone shoots down a concept or idea because its too awesome to implement. "Awesome" is exactly what you want your concept or idea to be.

[Joker of Muerte]

*gets some popcorn* I have caramel, cheddah, and jalapeno ...oo and watermelon

[Aleksej89]

Tinkers/alchemists got a ton of possibilities for WoW, pretty much any sci-fi movie, cartoon, comic, book, tv show has unlimited ideas for amazing tinker abilities and mechanics.

Also people just got TIRED of bows, swords and the usual magic - do we really need an "Nth class/spec" that uses magic in melee or casts magic from a distance?

Tinkers/alchemists/"Technology Class" offer something completely fresh, new and exciting - they are already present in some of the oldest warcraft games and the amount of awesome content they could bring is just unmatched by ANY other class suggestion.

[Ielenia]

Engineers build crossbows.

But not bows.

Strength, courge, and willpower via Holy magic or Shadow magic. With Warriors its simply their innate physical prowess.
Think Captain America. No flashy powers, just courage, strength, and willpower. With those qualities, he's able to take down foes who appear to be way more powerful than he is.
Its the exact same theme.

Most of the time, thanks to his indestructible shield.

[/quote]It certainly is. However, I've never see a case where someone shoots down a concept or idea because its too awesome to implement. "Awesome" is exactly what you want your concept or idea to be.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it shoots down a concept or idea. But it can certainly greatly tone them down to put them more at level with the other classes. Which means the backpack would be gone.

- - - Updated - - -

*gets some popcorn* I have caramel, cheddah, and jalapeno ...oo and watermelon

Don't forget the drink, man. The drink!

- - - Updated - - -

Also people just got TIRED of bows, swords and the usual magic - do we really need an "Nth class/spec" that uses magic in melee or casts magic from a distance?

Then maybe those people shouldn't be playing a 'Sword & Sorcery'-based game? There certainly are other games to fill in their tinker needs. Guild Wars 2 comes to mind.

Tinkers/alchemists/"Technology Class" offer something completely fresh, new and exciting - [/B]they are already present in some of the oldest warcraft games and the amount of awesome content they could bring is just unmatched by ANY other class suggestion.

But they only show up in multiplayer skirmish battles, which have no bearings in the story campaigns. They never show in any campaign, even in the pre-WoW 'Founding of Durotar' extra story campaign Blizzard gave away as promotion back when WoW was still in development.

[Hatecore]

One of my biggest issues is that people have been comparing the Tinker to Iron Man and Tony Stark, where as engineering is just a hobbyist.

I have never seen anything in WoW who is considered a tinker, outshine or otherwise create some technology, who is not also considered an engineer. That is my problem. There is not a single tech-user who either uses non-comparable engineering items as abilities or brand new ones, who is NOT called an engineer from a lore stand-point.

You claim that the Tinker is a genius techy who uses technology to fight, but nowhere does a canon source say that they are different or that they are better.

That's why I feel like it is useless to add. I honestly hope Blizzard will choose something new and unique for their next class.

Right because in Cannon lore they are Engineers infact I am yet to see any lore that shows a Tinker who is not a Engineer

[Rhamses]

But not bows.

Yes they do;

http://www.wowhead.com/item=59364/ov...icken-splitter

Most of the time, thanks to his indestructible shield.

Could you stop a god with an indestructible shield?

Again, the difference maker is the courage, willpower, and physical strength. That's what allows a warrior to do incredibly heroic things without magic or supernatural abilities.

I'm not saying it shoots down a concept or idea. But it can certainly greatly tone them down to put them more at level with the other classes. Which means the backpack would be gone.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't think the backpack is a huge deal, and I think it goes a long way towards separating the Tinker from other classes.

[Hatecore]

*gets some popcorn* I have caramel, cheddah, and jalapeno ...oo and watermelon

Bacon or GTFO

- - - Updated - - -

Tinkers/alchemists got a ton of possibilities for WoW, pretty much any sci-fi movie, cartoon, comic, book, tv show has unlimited ideas for amazing tinker abilities and mechanics.

Also people just got TIRED of bows, swords and the usual magic - do we really need an "Nth class/spec" that uses magic in melee or casts magic from a distance?

Tinkers/alchemists/"Technology Class" offer something completely fresh, new and exciting - they are already present in some of the oldest warcraft games and the amount of awesome content they could bring is just unmatched by ANY other class suggestion.

No it does not. alchemist are in game as a profession, Tinkers/Technology Class is in game as Engineers. There is no Tinkers/alchemists/"Technology Class lore wise. You have alchemist and Engineers.

[Rhamses]

No it does not. alchemist are in game as a profession, Tinkers/Technology Class is in game as Engineers. There is no Tinkers/alchemists/"Technology Class lore wise. You have alchemist and Engineers.

We can't play as those engineers. That's the problem.