Tinker Discussion Thread

[Talen]

I shudder to think of what it must be like working in the Blizz copy department, where every single typo winds up getting spun out into a secret undiscovered branch of magic. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely explanation for anything is apt to be the simplest one. Eight books required for the achievement = the writer has eight on the brain. One of those eight is the introduction.

And the missing book is probably Evocation. The manipulation of energy. Pyroblast would be an Evocation spell.

The Intro says eight - either it is a typo or there is a book missing. With the info we have, we can't really say which. But it is likely to be a missing book.

EJL

[Ielenia]

http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=18497#abilities
http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=35305#abilities
http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=11043#abilities
http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=11043#abilities
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=24554/eramas-brightblaze

So... other than having 'monk' in their names, I see no similarities, especially in the skillset.

[Tatzi]

http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=18497#abilities
http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=35305#abilities
http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=11043#abilities
http://wod.wowhead.com/npc=11043#abilities
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=24554/eramas-brightblaze

Kick is used by Rogues.
Cyclone Strike functions like Whirlwind, deals one second worth of damage, with an added knockback. Ooooh.
Argent Monk has paladin-like abilities. Divine Shield. Final Meditation is not a PC monk ability, nor related to any. Flurry of Blows is a attack speed buff. Pummel belongs to warriors.
Thrash is a not reminiscent of a monk ability.
Drink Healing Potion speaks for itself.
Fists of Arcane Fury is not reminiscent of a monk ability.
Knockdown is a physical stun. All physical classes have one.
Medallion of Immunity is a CC removal.

The monk class we have has unique abilities, different from this.

[Talen]

Tony Stark is an engineer, MacGyver was a Secret Agent, the A-Team is a mishmash of talent. Being resourceful does not a Tinker make. If they aren't models, then your "camp" (which you silently omitted) should stop bringing them up.

They do what a Tinker does....make devices out of junk. Whether you want to call them Tinkers or not, doesn't stop them being suitable examples of what a Tinker does. Design and build inventions using the parts he has available. Just as Gelbin did in his story.

First, "specializations", if you're going to drone on and on about it, spell it right

I did.

Second, I'm arguing with you that there is no Tinker, Software, or any other specializations that only deal with one field of engineering. Gnome and Goblin engineering never came up in your arguments. You're not going to start using them now as if that's what you've been talking about this entire time.

Considering I brought them up some time ago, that restriction seems a bit pointless. Do you normally try to win debates by telling people they can't use examples that show you to be wrong?

Engineering specialisations exist within the game world, and they exist in real life. If tyu wnat to assume a Tinker buy definition knows every single one of those available in Azeroth go right ahead.

Cutting to the chase, the debate here has been to prove that Tinkers, as envisaged by Teriz, cannot be added to the game.

To show you are wrong, to show that Terizs Tinker can be added - Clawpack and all - all I have to do is show that there are solutions to the issues you raise.

The thematic overlap between Class and Skill? Sorted. Blizzard can ignore it. No - it's true we don't know if they will or not, but the solution IS there. The Solution exists and has been used.

The mere fact that a solution that is acceptable to Blizzard exists means that this particular point is not one that stops a Tinkeer being added.

As for the arguments about resources, skills, intelligence and so on? Every singel, one of them relies upon the unfounded assumption that a ClawPack is an enormously expensive and complex piece of equipment. The solution is simple...

The ClawPack is neither complex nor expensive. It is simply a piece of equipment that a player character has acquired and has the necessray skills to use and maintain. Maybe even build. Doe sthis knowledge carry over tot he Engineering profession? No..because a Claw pack doens't have an Engineering schematic and because a level 1 Tinker woudl not be the ultra knowledgable ultra smart Tinker he would be at later levels.

And yet again...the mere fact that a solution exists to the problem you created exists meas that there is no impediment to the Tinker class.

The Tinker class...assuming a Level 1 Engineering style Tinker with a Clawpack...would simply be someone who has developed or learned enough engineering skill - from somewhere, be it book or master or self taught - to develop and build a simple, cheap ClawPack and who doesn't have the breadth or depth of other Engineering knowledge or specialisations to practise the profession.

And as for losing it with the Goblins? Blizzard has added quests and updated starter zones before. How difficult is it to add a "Lucky Find" quest with a claw pack washed up on the beach?

He starts off with nothing but his claw pack and the "Claw Swipe" move (or whatever) , he doesn't have a secret underground lair or dozens of servants, he isn't rich or super smart, he doesn't have a deep knowledge of engineering and if he has a knack at technology...well, most of that would go into improving his claw pack, adding abilities as he levels.

There you have it...a Tinker with a Clawpack at Level 1 that has none of the issues or problems you see existing.

Is this how Blizzard would add a Tinker? Probably not. The clawpack, if it existed at all, would most likely belong to a single spec and be granted at a much higher level.

But a L1 Tinker with a Clawpack? Not impossible so long as you don't make silly assumptions about it and refuse to accept any solution.

EJL

[Ielenia]

They do what a Tinker does....make devices out of junk.

Where does it say that 'tinker' is the kind of person who make devices out of junk? Especially in WoW? You guys. Another ludicrous idea into the tinker pile...

Do you normally try to win debates by telling people they can't use examples that show you to be wrong

Looks like to me he's trying to get you guys to use examples pertaining to the subject of the conversation instead of bringing examples that don't apply here. For example: real life different engineer paths do not apply in WoW because there are no different paths in WoW. Nothing in the lore suggest there are, yet you try to invent one to justify the tinker.

To show you are wrong, to show that Terizs Tinker can be added - Clawpack and all - all I have to do is show that there are solutions to the issues you raise.

Well, let's take a look, shall we?

The thematic overlap between Class and Skill? Sorted. Blizzard can ignore it.

No, they can't. Because it's not a minor overlap, it's a complete, full overlap, of a class and a profession that, in lore, have no distinction whatsoever. So no, it's not 'sorted.'

As for the arguments about resources, skills, intelligence and so on? Every singel, one of them relies upon the unfounded assumption that a ClawPack is an enormously expensive and complex piece of equipment.

It's not unfounded. We gave you examples upon examples that we base our arguments from. The Mekginner Chopper and the Mechano-Hog costs 12500 gold to make if you gather all the other materials yourself. And since the chopper/hog is less advanced than the Sky Golem which you guys claim is less advanced than the clawpack, guess where do we come from with the price argument?

The ClawPack is neither complex nor expensive

Now that is a big unfounded assumption. If not one of THE biggest ones in this thread from the pro-Tinker crowd.

It is simply a piece of equipment that a player character has acquired and has the necessray skills to use and maintain. Maybe even build. Doe sthis knowledge carry over tot he Engineering profession? No..because a Claw pack doens't have an Engineering schematic and because a level 1 Tinker woudl not be the ultra knowledgable ultra smart Tinker he would be at later levels.

Brushing aside the fact that all you wrote up there is just pure BS with how you simply, once again, make the tinker the 'oh-so-special' child of yours that deserves special treatment and preference over all the other classes... He would still need to know engineering. Because he would need to know how to build the circuitry. How to build the parts. How to do the electric wiring. How to assemble it. It is not something that can be done innately. And claiming engineering can't build it because it has no schematic is another big pile of BS. Why? Because the claw pack does not exist in WoW.

The Tinker class...assuming a Level 1 Engineering style Tinker with a Clawpack...would simply be someone who has developed or learned enough engineering skill - from somewhere, be it book or master or self taught - to develop and build a simple, cheap ClawPack and who doesn't have the breadth or depth of other Engineering knowledge or specialisations to practise the profession.

He would have learned engineering enough to build something more advanced than the Sky Golem. He would have the 'breadth and depth of engineering' to practice the profession like a champ.

And as for losing it with the Goblins? Blizzard has added quests and updated starter zones before. How difficult is it to add a "Lucky Find" quest with a claw pack washed up on the beach?

Because the sole reason for that would be again simply for make the tinker the 'oh-so-special' child of yours that deserves special treatment and preference over all the other classes.

He starts off with nothing but his claw pack

Which you still haven't explained how while still within the context and limits given to the other classes. No, Blizzard doesn't have an answer to this because this issue is 100% exclusive to your tinker idea. No other class came even remotely close to present such an issue.

Tl;Dr: No tinker issues were addressed at all, despite the poster claims, and only more conjectures and wild ideas were thrown into the already ludicrously big pile of wild, unfounded ideas that is Teriz' tinker idea.

[Monstercloud]

They do what a Tinker does...

Tinkers, in WoW, don't exist. They're engineers. Being resourceful is not a Tinker trait, it's just a word that can be applied to a multitude of things.

I did.

British spelling, gotcha...

Considering I brought them up some time ago, that restriction seems a bit pointless.

Because you brought them up at one time, doesn't mean they follow you everywhere, and they're not automatically applied to every single argument a person makes.

Still missing that "Software Engineer" specialization... not going to drop that one, that's gold.

-snip-

There you have it...a Tinker with a Clawpack at Level 1 that has none of the issues or problems you see existing.

That's it? A whole bunch of conjecture, speculation, and a dabble of "Fuck it" to anything that might be a problem? You've been saying this same dribble this entire time, and now say, "This is it! These are all the solutions that Blizzard has! Shoehorning and dismissal of all conflicts of lore, gameplay and logic!!"? I've seen phishing emails that have represented Blizzard better than you have.

Especially the whole "Engineers wouldn't know anything about tinker technology ever." "Why" "Oh because there's no Engineering schematic of it" ... WHAT? Do you not understand the concept of Inventions and Reverse Engineering? One is making something that's never been made before (hence not needing a schematic) and the other is not understanding something, but taking it apart so you can learn about it. If regular-Joe schmuck find or be given a Clawpack, why can't a zen master engineer find/steal/be given one to dissect, understand, and improve upon, ESPECIALLY if regular-Joe can learn the basics by level 10. Your "Just ignore it" "Blizzard™" solution just shows how shallow your arguments are.

[Teriz]

Fists of Arcane Fury is not reminiscent of a monk ability.

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=113656

The monk class we have has unique abilities, different from this.

I do believe the statement was "Monks weren't pulled from any NPC in WoW". Clearly they were, since those Monk NPCs existed in the game long before the class did. Are they identical to the existing Monk class? That was never the argument. The argument is that class themes need to have some basis in the game in order to be viable concepts. Clearly there was a basis for a martial arts/Monk class long before MoP came about with the Pandarens.

- - - Updated - - -

That are all wrapped within a single school of engineering.
Try as you might, the canon story says there's only one school of engineering. No amount of conjecture from you will change that.

Link to this canon story please.

It is a good representation of WoW technology. You can make from a simple firecracker to a flying mech.

Which isn't a good representation of technology's scope in the game. It's like saying Enchanting is a good representation of WoW's magic.

It's a valid question. Most 'tech' attacks you claim are simply 'throw bomb' attacks.

Again, that's a false statement. Bombs are a very small part of offensive technology abilities. Your ignorance simply demonstrates how poorly the profession represents WoW technology.

[Thimagryn]

Except they weren't. No playable class was pulled from and designed around WoW NPCs.

They're based on a class archetype derived from typical RPGs, centered on Pandaria's unique themes. This class is further familiarized by incorporating elements of the Brewmaster of Warcraft 3. The Brewmaster is not a basis of the Monk class, nor are WoW Monk NPCs, as it's clear that a majority of the abilities are completely new and based on Pandaria's themes as a whole.

So how does this relate to a Draconic-based class? It would be something new we haven't seen or heard of before. Dragons Breath, Dragon Aspect magic and Magic in general have no bearing on the possibilities that this class represents. If Wrathion were behind this new class, then it is something that has not been introduced in WoW yet.

[Ielenia]

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=113656

And this is 'Fists of Arcane Fury'. Nothing alike, right? Yep, another missed opportunity, Teriz.

I do believe the statement was "Monks weren't pulled from any NPC in WoW". Clearly they were, since those Monk NPCs existed in the game long before the class did. Are they identical to the existing Monk class? That was never the argument.

To say they were 'pulled' from said NPCs means they were inspired by said NPCs. And other than having 'monk' in their name, their skillset remembers nothing of the monk class. Remember: you are the one that keep saying abilities matter.

Link to this canon story please.

www.worldofwarcraft.com <- Access this website, register, buy the game, log in, and see for yourself.
In other words: what we see in the game is engineering with no 'different schools' at all. All rolled together in a single skill. And if it's that what we see in the game, it falls to you to prove there are 'different schools' of engineering by showing us evidence in the lore of Azeroth, not real life.

Which isn't a good representation of technology's scope in the game.

You can make flying shredders and wormhole generators, among other things (even a 'pocket factory' too). It is a good representative of the technology in WoW. You only say it doesn't because, again, you're enamored to your tinker idea.

Again, that's a false statement. Bombs are a very small part of offensive technology abilities. Your ignorance simply demonstrates how poorly the profession represents WoW technology.

Lol. There is a saying about stones and glass houses, y'know? Over all the 'tech abilities' in WoW you claimed don't exist in the engineering profession, over half of them are just different ways of saying 'throw bomb'.

[Talen]

That's it? A whole bunch of conjecture, speculation, and a dabble of "Fuck it" to anything that might be a problem?

You see a problem only because you are unwilling to consider anything other than yor own preconceived ideas. You have no proof that a claw pack is complex or expensive and yet continue to act and argue as if that were a 100% proven fact.

The simple point you miss here is that the scenario I paint simply posits that a clawpack would be something akin to a Junkyard Wars style device - cheap and simple. It doesn't require a broad or deep knowledge of engineering, it doesn't require lots of resources, it doesn't require lots of time, it doesn't require lots of maintenance.

It simply requires that you and Ielenia and others pushing the idea that a Clawpack is complex and expensive be wrong.

It creates a scenario that is easily within Blizzards capabilities and positions the Tinker as a tech based class that starts at a similar level as every other class. It's conjecture...but it shows that such a scenario is possible.

You don't like it, but if you want to show Tinkers can't be added, then you need to defeat this scenario. And any others that I can come up with.

Saying that the Clawpack is expensive/complex is something you can do...but it isn't something you can prove, nor is it somrthing Blizzard needs to actually pay any attention to. And without that one assumption...every single one fo your issues disappears.

EJL

[Teriz]

Except they weren't. No playable class was pulled from and designed around WoW NPCs.

They're based on a class archetype derived from typical RPGs, centered on Pandaria's unique themes. This class is further familiarized by incorporating elements of the Brewmaster of Warcraft 3. The Brewmaster is not a basis of the Monk class, nor are WoW Monk NPCs, as it's clear that a majority of the abilities are completely new and based on Pandaria's themes as a whole.

Nor did I say it was. I'm saying that a class entering WoW needs to have a basis within the game world. Monks existed in WoW long before the class did. Thus if someone said that there should be a Monk class in WoW, they could point to the various existing Monk NPCs as proof that such a class could exist within the WoW universe.

So how does this relate to a Draconic-based class? It would be something new we haven't seen or heard of before. Dragons Breath, Dragon Aspect magic and Magic in general have no bearing on the possibilities that this class represents. If Wrathion were behind this new class, then it is something that has not been introduced in WoW yet.

Yet you can't show me a single NPC in the game that carries this theme, or is similar to this class you wish to construct. If the basics aren't present in the game world, its highly unlikely that it would appear as a class.

[Ielenia]

You see a problem only because you are unwilling to consider anything other than yor own preconceived ideas.

Have you been looking in a mirror lately?

You have no proof that a claw pack is complex or expensive and yet continue to act and argue as if that were a 100% proven fact.

We have proof, we have shown proof. You just ignore it. Continuing the previous answer, you're the only one here unwilling to consider anything other than your own preconceived ideas.

It doesn't require a broad or deep knowledge of engineering, it doesn't require lots of resources, it doesn't require lots of time, it doesn't require lots of maintenance.

yes, it does. Especially if it's made of stuff found in a junkyard, which means sub-par parts and rusty metals. That would require way more maintenance than if the same machinery was made from new parts. That just goes to show how dumb and how little thought you actually put in your arguments.

It simply requires that you and Ielenia and others pushing the idea that a Clawpack is complex and expensive be wrong.

We don't need to push anything. Anyone with at least two brain cells can come to the same conclusions we had.

You don't like it, but if you want to show Tinkers can't be added, then you need to defeat this scenario. And any others that I can come up with.

The "scenario" defeated itself before it even aired, so much stuff you guys did to the poor tinker idea. Your "scenario" has been beaten to death by its own issues plus all the ludicrous ideas you guys just kept piling on it.

Saying that the Clawpack is expensive/complex is something you can do...but it isn't something you can prove

It can be proved, and it was proven. For one of many evidences, just look at the comparison I did with the engineer bike mounts. 12500 gold to build one. Bikes are less advanced than the Sky Golem. And you guys say the Sky Golem is less advanced than the Claw Pack. Ding!

[Teriz]

And this is 'Fists of Arcane Fury'. Nothing alike, right? Yep, another missed opportunity, Teriz.


To say they were 'pulled' from said NPCs means they were inspired by said NPCs. And other than having 'monk' in their name, their skillset remembers nothing of the monk class. Remember: you are the one that keep saying abilities matter.

That's funny, I thought Monks had martial arts abilities like all those NPCs do.

www.worldofwarcraft.com <- Access this website, register, buy the game, log in, and see for yourself.

So yet another claim with no evidence to back it up. Typical.

In other words: what we see in the game is engineering with no 'different schools' at all. All rolled together in a single skill. And if it's that what we see in the game, it falls to you to prove there are 'different schools' of engineering by showing us evidence in the lore of Azeroth, not real life.

I already did;

Explosives, Chemicals, Robotics, Electric, Gravity/Magnetic, Rocketry, Lasers, Ballistics

I could provide several examples of each if you like.

You can make flying shredders and wormhole generators, among other things (even a 'pocket factory' too). It is a good representative of the technology in WoW. You only say it doesn't because, again, you're enamored to your tinker idea.

I say its not a good representation because it isn't a good representation. Where's the Adrenaline Bombs, Magnetic Field, Photoplasm Buster Ray, Compact Harvest Reaper, Shockwave Missiles, Rocket Boost, or Growth Ray?

And there's plenty more where that came from, and none present within the profession.

[fixx]

And hundreds of abilities and attributes not found in the profession.

Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong. NPCs always has different abilities from players for various game balance reasons. It has got nothing to do with your tinker fantasy.

The most common game balance reason is because NPCs have no GCD. All NPC attacks including melee has a fixed cooldown which varies based on the creature and ability.

How could I answer yes or no to a question that is 100% false?

More than half of all tech abilities NPCs do in the game are "throw x bomb" attacks. It's totally valid question considering you claimed that tech abilities currently in game would make a class. Now put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

[Teriz]

Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong. NPCs always has different abilities from players for various game balance reasons. It has got nothing to do with your tinker fantasy.

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=69409#see-also-other

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=12550

You were saying?

More than half of all tech abilities NPCs do in the game are "throw x bomb" attacks. It's totally valid question considering you claimed that tech abilities currently in game would make a class. Now put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

Again, how can I answer yes or no when your entire argument is 100% false and based on pure ignorance of the subject matter?

[Tatzi]

If your going to say that Fists of Fury and Fists of Arcane Fury can be jumbled together because of their names and themes, then ANY bomb in engineering can be jumbled together with ANY bomb in your perceived class.

[Monstercloud]

-snip-

See how short the responses quickly get once you've exhausted your diatribe for the 20th time? You're right I see a problem, because I'm not willing to think like you, because it is 100% biased conjecture.... YA GOT ME. I'm not willing to hop from point to point, spew things like, "You guys were the ones who started talking about geniuses and Tony Stark... I mean, the ones who used that against us.", that "Software" is an engineering specialization... just acknowledge there isn't actually a "Software Engineer" in WoW. Go on, that foot has to come out of your mouth sometime...

You don't like it, but if you want to show Tinkers can't be added, then you need to defeat this scenario

You know what the beauty is? I don't. The scenario is unwinnable in a thread where, "Blizzard can just ignore it" is a legitimate point to anything. It's also a scenario that you think has a "Win/Loss", which probably in your eyes, isn't a "Loss" until Blizzard releases a tinker-like class, or there are no more expansions. This is is why "Infallible Imagination" works so well to describe the driving force of this circus.

Explosives, Chemicals, Robotics, Electric, Gravity/Magnetic, Rocketry, Lasers, Ballistics

I could provide several examples of each if you like.

I'm sure you could, and I'm sure they're all under the presumption that if they're known for X, that means it's a different school... like every other over-reaching point.

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=69409#see-also-other

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=12550

You were saying?

You've discovered that Death Knights can possibly have derivative powers based on the being who gave them their powers, and a basic spell can be used by many, easily killed, "grunts"...though I thank you for stopping at 2.

By the way, how's that MMO-C poll retort coming along?

[Thimagryn]

Nor did I say it was. I'm saying that a class entering WoW needs to have a basis within the game world. Monks existed in WoW long before the class did. Thus if someone said that there should be a Monk class in WoW, they could point to the various existing Monk NPCs as proof that such a class could exist within the WoW universe.

Except the Monk Class has absolute zero relation to any Monk NPCs before it. They don't share abilities, and in most cases, not even theme. What they share is a name and a basic archetype.

Which would be no different than pointing to the current 4-legged reptilian Dragonsworn and saying 'These are NPCs that serve Dragons, just like your player class would!'. What we would be talking about is an archetype that has absolutely no representation on a player class, like for example being a Champion trained under Wrathion and his new 'Dragonflight'.

Yet you can't show me a single NPC in the game that carries this theme, or is similar to this class you wish to construct. If the basics aren't present in the game world, its highly unlikely that it would appear as a class.

Cuz you'd Strawman the hell out of it. Why else would you want me to point out any specific NPC, even if it were a passing relation to the concept I'm talking about? Dragonsworn Player class does not exist. If Scarlet Crusade Monks were used as an example of a Monk class, it could easily be dismissed as being too similar to Paladins and lacking interesting theme or gameplay mechanics to support a full class. What is the point of confusing the topic by misrepresenting it with ill-suited NPC examples? It would have been much easier to explain a Monk class by say citing Diablo 3's Monk, who uses unarmed strikes and dodging; but even that example lacks the Brewmaster, Mistweaver and Celestial Animal themes that makes WoW's Monk shine.

We're talking about a new class that has Draconic themes. There is no reason why it could not exist. It has the exact same likelyhood of existing as a Tech-themed class.

[Teriz]

Except the Monk Class has absolute zero relation to any Monk NPCs before it. They don't share abilities, and in most cases, not even theme. What they share is a name and a basic archetype.

Sharing the name, and the basic archetype contradicts your statement that the Monk class has absolute zero relation to any Monk NPC that came before it.

Bravo on the rapid contradiction. It was truly marvelous.

Cuz you'd Strawman the hell out of it. Why else would you want me to point out any specific NPC, even if it were a passing relation to the concept I'm talking about? Dragonsworn Player class does not exist. If Scarlet Crusade Monks were used as an example of a Monk class, it could easily be dismissed as being too similar to Paladins and lacking interesting theme or gameplay mechanics to support a full class. What is the point of confusing the topic by misrepresenting it with ill-suited NPC examples? It would have been much easier to explain a Monk class by say citing Diablo 3's Monk, who uses unarmed strikes and dodging.

Only an idiot would confuse a bare-handed martial artist with a heavily-armored paladin. Furthermore, there were far more examples of non-Pandaren Monks in WoW than the Scarlet Crusade variety.

The Dragonsworn player class doesn't need to exist yet. What needs to exist is a basis for its existence, such as NPCs who represent the theme you're talking about. We had Death Knights and Monks in WoW since vanilla.

Guess what? We had Tinkers, Technicians, and other tech-based NPCs in vanilla too.

Like I keep telling you; Dragonsworn is a faction, not the basis for a class. It's like saying we should make a class out of the Defias Brotherhood, or the Scarlet Crusade. Absolute nonsense.

[fixx]

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=69409#see-also-other
You were saying?

Same name three different abilities... You're making it incredibly easy today to discredit those inane links.

Again, how can I answer yes or no when your entire argument is 100% false and based on pure ignorance of the subject matter?

You're trying so hard to strawman again it's just hilarious...

We can use Siegecrafter Blackfuse as an example, since you like it so much... Out of the 18 abilities listed in the encounter 8 can or will deal damage to multiple opponents if you get hit. That is approximately 44% of all abilities. On Mimiron encounter the three parts of the boss has 3 shared abilities and on top of that 7 abilities unique to one of the thirds only. Out of those three shared abilities one is a dummy used for the encounter design (heal if not all parts die at the same time, since players can never be in parts I think we can discount this as a possibility for players to ever get). Out of those 7 other abilities 6 deal AOE damage either around the boss or around the target. That's 6 abilities out of 9 or 66% of Mimiron encounter is random AOE.

Now please, with simple yes/no answers:

1) Am I right when I said most of the tech abilities done by NPCs currently in game are AOE damage?
2) Would a class that has same kind of ability breakup as current NPCs in game be good design as you claimed?