Tinker Discussion Thread

[Ielenia]

Funny, I thought the profession was called Engineering, not Tinker.
Additionally, you're going against Blizzard's lore of what a profession is;
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/profession/

Yet the game clearly depicts the tinker as the 'stay-at-shop' crafter and the engineer as the adventurer one, doesn't it?

Not yet.

Yet we have technology available for everyone since WoW day 1. If Tinkers didn't happen until now, they won't happen anymore. The ship has sailed so long ago you can't even see it in the horizon anymore.

It would appear I know more about it than you do,

No, you don't. You're proving you know jack squat about roleplaying if you think it's "just that easy" to throw away a character and make another just because the game company decided to bring in something that made your entire character obsolete.

No, its stating common sense as fact. A melee plate-wearing physical class is the Warrior's domain. Anything similar is invading that class' design space.

The same common sense that says Tinkers can't happen because engineer is already in the game for players? No, you're stating conjecture as fact.

It would be impossible to be a carbon copy of the Shaman class since Shaman are not technological-based.

It would be a carbon-copy with just a new skin if the class played the same as a shaman.

I said hero, not adventurer.

And? The point stay the same. Gazzlowe isn't exactly a 'hero,' either. Point is, Tinkers never go anywhere. Engineers do.

The theme and concept is a hero that uses technology to protect allies and defeat enemies.

'protects allies and defeats enemies' is not exactly a 'theme' or 'concept', because that's what all player characters do, regardless of class or profession, so all that's left for you is 'uses technology', which is the engineer theme. The mage theme is a cloth-wearing spellcaster that uses arcane to create devastating spells. The shaman is a mail-wearing spellcaster that uses magic from the elements. The paladin is a plate-wearing fighter of justice. The warrior is a plate-wearing fighter who relies solely on his own strength and weapons. The tinker? A [insert any type of armor here]-wearing fighter who relies on technology. That's basically it for tinkers. One carbon-copy of the engineers with just a power-boost in the game mechanics. One could even add 'rather than his own strength' at the end of the tinker description and he wouldn't be wrong.

No, player DKs are not members of the Ebon Blade. They belong to either the Horde of Alliance. You can gain reputation with their faction, but you're never of their faction.

Actually, yes, DKs are members of the Ebon Blade. So much so you start with 'friendly' with their faction. And mages are members of Dalaran. So much so mages start with 'Friendly' with Dalaran.

[fixx]

You don't get it...do you?

In the first example, the Hunter would tend to use auto-shoot or instants. A Mage spell tends to have a cast time. Thematically and mechanically, the two are different because the spells have different properties, are used and activated in different ways.

Both are activated by pressing a button, both consume GCD and both deal a set amount of damage on single target using a set amount of resource bar which makes the two very similar in everything pertaining to game mechanics. And as long as you dont get that any further discussion is pointless because you dont understand what the dictionary definition of similar means or just disagree with a dictionary which is even worse.

[Talen]

Mages and Druids are clearly Magic and Nature themed. They may have light Dragon themes, but like you've said, it doesn't drive the class by any means.

Dragons aren't dragon themed either. They are Mages and Warriors and Druids who are dragons. Any Dragon abilities they show derive from the fact they are Dragons and not from some font of mystical power. Their power derives from their greatest knowledge and ability, from their inherent physical prowess and strength.

We don't have any class that has a Draconic theme, and that's as viable as any.

No. Some themes are more viable than others.

Is a Draconic theme viable? Dragons gain power from their own skills, their own essence, from the same arcane and Druidic fonts of power as humans and NElfs and so on.

We can presume a Dragon could grant part of its essence to a mortal. That's probably the most viable story for such a class. But for a mortal to be given a gift implies a certain degree of skill and renown already...so we are looking at simply augmenting an existing class rather than create a new one. So...is the Dragon just going to bind a L1 player to him? Let him discover his own powers....

What I am getting at here is how do you define a Dragonsworn? How can you show it in game? Is a Dragonsworn an existing class that has bound itself to a flight? Maybe, but that isn't a new class. Are you looking for someone who has natural dragon abilities? Maybe...but that is a racial choice? If it is simply someone who learns the spells and abilities of a dragon...we already have Mages and warriors and druids.

A Dragon themed class has to be something more than a Mage who adds a Dragon look to his spells. Nor can it be someone who is a Dragon. It has to be someone who derives his power, his reason to be, from Dragons in someway and his spells and abilities reflect that link.

But how do you do that when the Dragons power derives mainly from who and what they are and what they know? A Dragon is big, tough and powerful...because that is what it is. Dragon Magic is powerful... But its already used by mortals who draw from the same power sources Dragons do.

I can see a class developed around the use of Dragon themed abilities. I think that can be done. But what is it that stops him being, for example, a Mage? A Mage who draws from the same font of arcane knowledge and power as Blue Dragons. What is the difference between a Bronze Dragons worn and a Time walker? A Green dragonsworn and a druid?

The issue here is that the source of power for Dragons is the same as that for existing classes. Their concerns are also the concerns of existing mortal organisations. Their stories are already being explored.

Dragons have design baggage because their lore and history and capabilities have already been explored to a large degree. OTOH, there is no class with a Dragon theme. OTOOH, Dragon abilities...by and large...are either racial or already available to the mortal races and existing classes.

I can see the attraction behind a Dragon themed class. And I can accept that mechanically it could be developed. And it is a more viable concept than some other class themes that have been suggested.

But it keeps coming back to the existing baggage. What is the difference between a Green Dragonsworn who is tied to Druidic themes and a Druid? A Blue or Bronze Dragonsworn with their links to the Arcane/Time and Mages? That existing baggage carries with it strong overlaps with other classes because of the way Draconic lore and themes have already been developed. It also means there is no font of Draconian power such a class can draw power from.

It is possible, and I wouldn't rule it out....but the best way to give a Dragon theme to players would be to make Drakonids playable.

Both are activated by pressing a button, both consume GCD and both deal a set amount of damage on single target using a set amount of resource bar which makes the two very similar in everything pertaining to game mechanics.

Except you discount aspects such as GCD, cast time, CD and so.

An instant cast ability with a 6s CD is very different from an ability with a cast time of 6s. Both would consume GCD, both could deal the same damage, both are activated by pressing a button and both consume the class resource.

But both are still very different abilities because the other aspects and attributes of the spells, and the interaction with other abilities, are also hugely important. If you can't make you point without discounting those attributes inherent to every class ability in game, then you don't really have much of a point. And even if we assume the abilities function identically in every way, we are still likely to have audio and visual differentiation. Those also play a role.

Nor can we overlook that items don't have those interactions at all. And because of that....a class skill that mimics an Engineering item in effect is still going to be very different from the item. It will use the class resource and it will interact with class abilities even if we discount that it would be tuned for viability.

So...where is the problem?

EJL

[fixx]

The theme and concept is a hero that uses technology to protect allies and defeat enemies. Which btw, differentiates it from the Engineering profession which is a craftsman who builds technology items to trade and sell. Now, please tell me how the technology class or the game itself would be negatively affected because it shares the technology theme with engineering (no different than spellcasters sharing the magic theme with enchanting).

What a load of crap... If you take that "hero that uses technology to protect allies and defeat enemies" theme and replace the word "technology" with "sword" or "magic" it could describe any class currently in game. And as long as your theme is one word "technology" that one word could be used to describe engineering as well, or an object like Jeeves which is just a piece of technology.

For the 20th time try to come up with a full paragraph theme that distincts the class from profession or its worthless. A full paragraph like Blizzard did http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/game/class/

no different than spellcasters sharing the magic theme with enchanting

Dumb statements based on a mountain of intentional logic fallacies ie. trolling isn't acceptable argument in any civilized discussion.

So...where is the problem?

In your end.

Except you discount aspects such as GCD, cast time, CD and so.

You're still nitpicking just like Teriz to avoid admitting the truth.

A gunshot which is instant ability (after you press a button) is for all practical gameplay purposes totally identical to a spammable spell with 1.5 second cast time and a cooldown equal to or less than 1.5s. Both activate GCD when you press down single button and prevent you from doing anything else for the 1.5s duration.

[Thimagryn]

Dragons aren't dragon themed either. They are Mages and Warriors and Druids who are dragons. Any Dragon abilities they show derive from the fact they are Dragons and not from some font of mystical power. Their power derives from their greatest knowledge and ability, from their inherent physical prowess and strength.

Tinkers aren't anything but Mages, Warriors and others as well, yet you see the possibility for a Tinker class. Interpretation is subjective, so I don't wish to push any one particular concept, but out of the ones I've provided it's pretty clear that the class would not need to resort to Dragon-themed gimmickry like Roaring very loudly like a Dragon or conjuring flames in the shape of a Dragon head.

Dragons are Titan themed, surprisingly enough. The Aspects represent the major tennants of the Pantheon. They represent Creation itself. Like the Dragons were chosen to safeguard Azeroth, the Dragonsworn are chosen to uphold those values as champions of the Dragonflights.

Is a Draconic theme viable? Dragons gain power from their own skills, their own essence, from the same arcane and Druidic fonts of power as humans and NElfs and so on.

You should learn the lore before you start talking about it. They don't require to tap into any fonts of power. They were blessed with power directly from the Titans, though this was diminished with the creation of the Demon Soul and furthermore after its destruction. Yet it remains that Dragons are still very powerful magical beings, and nothing in lore tells us they draw from the sources as mortal races. For one thing, the Red Dragons have power over life that even the Druids are not capable of achieving. Korialstrasz was able to create a living being out of pure Arcane magic of the Sunwell. It is a unique ability that Red Dragons possess, not something that a Mage or Druid could easily replicate.

We can presume a Dragon could grant part of its essence to a mortal. That's probably the most viable story for such a class. But for a mortal to be given a gift implies a certain degree of skill and renown already...so we are looking at simply augmenting an existing class rather than create a new one. So...is the Dragon just going to bind a L1 player to him? Let him discover his own powers....

Is the reason you bring this up because you do not believe it is plausible or believable in some way? You make it sound like a lore issue, yet lore is easily explained away. Captain America was a patriotic, good-natured person with a weak body. He was given a super serum and gifted with superhuman strength. Though we were spared the montage training scenes, he would have still had to train himself in various fighting techniques and especially in using a shield as his weapon of choice.

If the player started as a lowly adventurer who proved themselves through a courageous deed (saved Dragon eggs from a Twilights Hammer plot), they could be taken in, blessed and trained as a champion of the dragonflight. It could even be a 'happy accident' that lets them obtain their powers, since that's pretty much how the Death Knights gained their freedom.

I don't think there's any wrong way about it. Consider that they were able to write stories for the last Black Dragon in an Asian-themed continent, and made the Tauren that every Horde player has killed become one of the greatest champions of the Horde. They can make anything work.

Maybe...but that is a racial choice? If it is simply someone who learns the spells and abilities of a dragon...we already have Mages and warriors and druids.

When designing any class, the first step is to figure its role and purpose. Mage, Warrior and Druid gameplay themes would be ruled out immediately, and I've already discussed the myriad of ways the class could take shape. A Piercing Weapons master who wore Dragonscale would ideally be the 'Dragoon' archetype. They could be themed with magical Lances and Spears that appear in their attacks, similar to how Paladins invoke blessed Hammers and Rogues employ throwing Daggers.

Their magic could be themed on Creation, and using a combination of the 5 aspects to create magical barriers and wards, rather conjuring spells. They wouldn't be using 'Magic', 'Time', or 'Life' magic separately. Remember the Chromatic Dragonflight that Nefarion tried to create? This is the power that a Dragonsworn could obtain. Chromatic Blast, Flames of the Aspects, Prismatic Wave. Again, one of many examples.

Is it thematically too powerful? Not necessarily more powerful than a master Warlock who commands the powers of the great Demon Lords, or of a Shaman who commands the very elements themselves.

But how do you do that when the Dragons power derives mainly from who and what they are and what they know? A Dragon is big, tough and powerful...because that is what it is. Dragon Magic is powerful... But its already used by mortals who draw from the same power sources Dragons do.

Paladins invoke the very same source of magic as Priests, including sharing the same faiths. The exact same. No one seems to have an issue.

But it keeps coming back to the existing baggage. What is the difference between a Green Dragonsworn who is tied to Druidic themes and a Druid? A Blue or Bronze Dragonsworn with their links to the Arcane/Time and Mages? That existing baggage carries with it strong overlaps with other classes because of the way Draconic lore and themes have already been developed. It also means there is no font of Draconian power such a class can draw power from.

This class would not be dedicated to 1 Dragonflight. It would not be dedicated to 3 Dragonflights. It would have to be all or nothing to make this class concept work, so when defining any Specs within this class, all 5 Aspects would be taken into consideration.

The easiest way to define it all is by not separating it at all, and using it plainly as is. They don't use Druidic abilities, they would use abilities like Emerald Flame, Breath of Ysera and Dreamer's Touch. They wouldn't use Mage abilities, they would use Kalec's Wisdom, Power Sparks, and Azure Storm. None of these abilities scream 'Nature' or 'Arcane', which avoids most of the association issues. Most of those abilities read as Dragonflight or Aspect themed. Names and colours are what the Dragonflights define themselves with, so it's only natural that it be present in the ability themes as well.

Just look at the Monk and you'll easily see this is exactly how they were designed. They have Fire and Lightning spells, which on the outset directly competes with Shamans. It's why people initially saw them as Shaman Clones. They breathe fire and shoot lightning! But that lightning turned to Jade Lightning, and suddenly it's unique. There's really no competition between the abilities I listed and that of a Mage, Warrior or Druid.

[Talen]

You're still nitpicking just like Teriz to avoid admitting the truth.

Who is nitpicking? You are asking me to ignore multiple properties of ingame abilities, apparently under the unstated premise that it wrecks the point you want to make.

A gunshot which is instant ability (after you press a button) is for all practical gameplay purposes totally identical to a spammable spell with 1.5 second cast time and a cooldown equal to or less than 1.5s. Both activate GCD when you press down single button and prevent you from doing anything else for the 1.5s duration.

Except you can't move when you cast that spell. That is quite an important difference. So no...the two aren't the same. Even were you to now compare an instant cast spell with instant cast shot, you have to assume that the class does not interact with those abilities in any other way. That neither has any secondary effect. That neither is affected by or generates procs. That both even share animations and sound effects.

You are trying to show that Tinkers and Engineering abilities are the same. But to do that, you are trying to show that class abilities don't interact with the class resource system or other passive and active class abilities. And that isn't the case. Class abilities DO interact and that, in turn, makes them very different.

An I am sorry - but if you want me to ignore fundamental aspects of abilities, you are going to need a stronger argument than you don't want me to.

Tinkers aren't anything but Mages, Warriors and others as well

At best, only in gameplay terms.

yet you see the possibility for a Tinker class.

Yes. And I see the potential in this Dragonsworn concept as well. It's when you try to add it into the game that some problems arise.

Interpretation is subjective, so I don't wish to push any one particular concept, but out of the ones I've provided it's pretty clear that the class would not need to resort to Dragon-themed gimmickry like Roaring very loudly like a Dragon or conjuring flames in the shape of a Dragon head.

No. But the abilities do need to have a Draconic theme.

Dragons are Titan themed, surprisingly enough. The Aspects represent the major tennants of the Pantheon. They represent Creation itself.

You aren't pushing for a Titan theme. You're pushing Draconic.

Like the Dragons were chosen to safeguard Azeroth, the Dragonsworn are chosen to uphold those values as champions of the Dragonflights.

And what is a Dragonsworn? Are they those beings who so impressed a dragon that it was granted part of its Draconic essence? In which case, it is already a warrior or mage or druid or whatever...and one of some noteworthy skill. And if it isn't...why would a Dragon share its essence? If it is just a being who studies Dragons and seeks to learn their magics and abilities...we have mages and Druids.


In short...what is a Dragonsworn and how would it be different from existing classes? It uses Draconic magic. Fine So does every mage. It protects the Emerald Dream. Druids. Dragosn are more powerful yes...but mainly in the way that an ArchMage is more powerful than a Mage.

If the player started as a lowly adventurer who proved themselves through a courageous deed (saved Dragon eggs from a Twilights Hammer plot), they could be taken in, blessed and trained as a champion of the dragonflight

Saving Dragon Eggs is worth a reward. But that lowly Adventurer would already be a warrior or mage. And the Dragons didn't see fit to give Rhonin their essence despite the fact he saved a Dragonflight.

Paladins invoke the very same source of magic as Priests, including sharing the same faiths. The exact same. No one seems to have an issue.

Different design spaces does that. They look different, don't share abilities, have relatively minor overlaps in lore and so on.


[quote] The easiest way to define it all is by not separating it at all, and using it plainly as is. They don't use Druidic abilities, they would use abilities like Emerald Flame, Breath of Ysera and Dreamer's Touch. They wouldn't use Mage abilities, they would use Kalec's Wisdom, Power Sparks, and Azure Storm. None of these abilities scream 'Nature' or 'Arcane', which avoids most of the association issues. Most of those abilities read as Dragonflight or Aspect themed. Names and colours are what the Dragonflights define themselves with, so it's only natural that it be present in the ability themes as well.

Just look at the Monk and you'll easily see this is exactly how they were designed. They have Fire and Lightning spells, which on the outset directly competes with Shamans.

That's because you keep thinking spell school is important.

It's why people initially saw them as Shaman Clones

Rogues.


As it is, right now the lore of the Dragonflights and their members is already strongly tied into several existing classes. This isn't an issue with gameplay but of an existing overlap. It is indirect in this case...but it is there. Green Dragons aren't druids...but they are strongly associated with Druids, Druidic magic and the Emerald Dream. Blue Dragons aren't mages...but their lore strongly asssociates them with the arcane. Bronzes aren't chronomancers per se...but their lore does tie them into the Time Magic which is quickly becoming a staple of Mages and their duties have been passed off to the Timewalkers...mortal beings who by and large are Dragonsworn in concept.


The Dragonborn concept doesn't work for a class. That'd be a racial choice.
The Dragonsworn concept isn't something I'd say is impossible, but it does have issues.


Gameplaywise? I'm sure you are correct...you can create a class that is based around a Draconic theme. The issue isn't gameplay. Its the existing baggage of such a class concept. It can't be just a warrior or mage who uses Dragon themed abilities. It can't be a Dragonborn or Drakonid. And it needs to avoid the existing overlaps that exists between the Dragons and existing classes.


Its not impossible...perhaps the Dragon has been trapped in the form of a mortal and can't access his powers. But this is not a concept that is without problems or issues.

EJL

[Azalar]

Tinkers would be cool if themed with Titan stuff such as Mimiron, evolved from tinkering lowly machines and gadgets like professional engineers. There aren't any other classes that are purely titanic themed, are there?

[Teriz]

Yet the game clearly depicts the tinker as the 'stay-at-shop' crafter and the engineer as the adventurer one, doesn't it?

Mekkatorque, Gallywix, and Gearslip aren't stay at shop crafters. Furthermore, Blizzard has already shown us multiple variations of technology heroes and villains in combat via WoW, WC3, and HotS. So we know its possible in the WC universe.

Yet we have technology available for everyone since WoW day 1. If Tinkers didn't happen until now, they won't happen anymore. The ship has sailed so long ago you can't even see it in the horizon anymore.

We don't have the type of technology that we're seeing out of dungeon/raid bosses or even basic mobs. The player is stuck using toys while clearly in the gameworld there are more powerful types of technology available. This fact is compounded by the fact that Goblins and Gnomes via lore are supposed to be able to use this technology, yet can't because of the lack of a technology class.

No, you don't. You're proving you know jack squat about roleplaying if you think it's "just that easy" to throw away a character and make another just because the game company decided to bring in something that made your entire character obsolete.

Where did I say they needed to throw away their character? They're role-playing. You can keep pretending your Hunter/Engineer is a technology class until WoW2 comes out. If RPers wish to actually dump their pretend Tinkers for real Tinkers, why is that a bad thing?

Besides, how are all those RPers going to feel when Blizzard removes all their damage items? Good luck pretending to be a tech class when you can't even throw a bomb.

The same common sense that says Tinkers can't happen because engineer is already in the game for players? No, you're stating conjecture as fact.

No, because professions don't compete with classes, and a Tinker class player can also roll the engineering profession on the same character. Thus they aren't competing with each other, they compliment each other. The two plate-wearing fighter classes are in direct competition for raid spots, armor, weapons, abilities, and player interest. It's not even close to the same thing.

It would be a carbon-copy with just a new skin if the class played the same as a shaman.

Except it would be impossible for the class to play the same as the shaman. The themes are too different.

And? The point stay the same. Gazzlowe isn't exactly a 'hero,' either. Point is, Tinkers never go anywhere. Engineers do.

Gelbin definitely gets around, as does Grizzle Gearslip.

'protects allies and defeats enemies' is not exactly a 'theme' or 'concept', because that's what all player characters do, regardless of class or profession, so all that's left for you is 'uses technology', which is the engineer theme. The mage theme is a cloth-wearing spellcaster that uses arcane to create devastating spells. The shaman is a mail-wearing spellcaster that uses magic from the elements. The paladin is a plate-wearing fighter of justice. The warrior is a plate-wearing fighter who relies solely on his own strength and weapons. The tinker? A [insert any type of armor here]-wearing fighter who relies on technology. That's basically it for tinkers. One carbon-copy of the engineers with just a power-boost in the game mechanics. One could even add 'rather than his own strength' at the end of the tinker description and he wouldn't be wrong.

You forgot the "hero" part. That's key to the classes. You are a hero.

Also again, its not just a power-boost. The abilities are completely different, and come from different schools of technology.

Despite all of this yammering, you have yet to come up with a single negative consequence for Blizzard to bring a technology class in the game. The only thing you've produced are benefits to Blizzard bringing it into the game. RPers benefit, Engineering benefits, Goblins and Gnomes benefit, and players benefit.

If all there is are benefits, then nothing stops Blizzard from implementing this class into the game. Again, the ball is in your court; Show us why this class would have a negative impact on Engineering and the game itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Arguement against Tinkers:[/U][/B]
Aside from all that most classes have a long history that dives into its own mythos. Deathknights and Necromancy, Mages and the Arcane, Shamans and the Elements, Monks and the Celestials, ... Tinkers and Mimiron or Blackfuse?? Also there are not enough heroes demonstrating its use on the field of battle. Or maybe there are but they drive mech suits that we can't see Blizzard giving us as an ability.

There have been Goblin and Gnome technicians in Warcraft since WC2. Also Gnome and Goblin technology stretches far back into Azerothian history.

Mekkatorque doesn't drive a mech suit.

Tinkers are hard to sell because everyone wants some magical attribute to their class and Tinkers lean towards no particular energy source in wow. They would have to spend time making something up. Which would give the people who were already going to complain anyway something new to qq about.

Not everyone is a fan of magic and spellcasting. If you're talking about people wanting flashy abilities, technology offers plenty of that. Just like at Iron Juggernaut and Blackfuse.

Also not a lot of fanart from Samwise involving Tinkers killing stuff outside of Starcraft.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...blintinker.jpg
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...eamwarrior.jpg
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...Epictinker.jpg

Final reason would be because so many have already asked for it the reveal/surprise factor the people actually think still exists would be less than if it was an entirely new (unrequested) class.""If you are going to get a kid a surprise birthday present don't get him anything he wants, ... That might ruin the surprise!"

Just as likely, Blizzard would view it as fan demand and implement the class due to its perceived popularity. Think about it; Which would you implement? The class that has a long history in the game, is already partially made for you, and what your fanbase is demanding, or some unknown class that no one's heard of and which you have to build from the ground up?

[Aleksej89]

I think tinkers should be combined with alchemists into a single class for wow, it would be much more interesting.

My suggestion for such a class in the signature below:

[Teriz]

I think tinkers should be combined with alchemists into a single class for wow, it would be much more interesting.

My suggestion for such a class in the signature below:

Sounds feasible, considering that the WC3 Alchemist hero also shares the technology theme, and one of its abilities already showed up in WoW as a tech-based ability.

In any case, I have to go out of country for a few weeks, so I won't be able to post here again until late May. I look forward to seeing how this thread progresses in my absence.

[Raiju]

Sounds feasible, considering that the WC3 Alchemist hero also shares the technology theme, and one of its abilities already showed up in WoW as a tech-based ability.

In any case, I have to go out of country for a few weeks, so I won't be able to post here again until late May. I look forward to seeing how this thread progresses in my absence.

It will probably die

[fixx]

Who is nitpicking? You are asking me to ignore multiple properties of ingame abilities, apparently under the unstated premise that it wrecks the point you want to make.

You are nitpicking. And yes, you should ignore some details to allow things to be similar but not identical. That's the whole point and the distinction between those two terms you still have problems with.

Except you can't move when you cast that spell. That is quite an important difference. So no...the two aren't the same. Even were you to now compare an instant cast spell with instant cast shot, you have to assume that the class does not interact with those abilities in any other way. That neither has any secondary effect. That neither is affected by or generates procs. That both even share animations and sound effects.

And to prove my point above you go ahead and nitpick to the max with both real and purely speculative "what if" details.

[Ielenia]

Mekkatorque, Gallywix, and Gearslip aren't stay at shop crafters. Furthermore, Blizzard has already shown us multiple variations of technology heroes and villains in combat via WoW, WC3, and HotS. So we know its possible in the WC universe.

Neither are they heroes in the player sense. They are 'stay-at-shop' crafters, they're not adventurers. Their fame come from their inventions, not from their adventures.

We don't have the type of technology that we're seeing out of dungeon/raid bosses or even basic mobs. The player is stuck using toys while clearly in the gameworld there are more powerful types of technology available. This fact is compounded by the fact that Goblins and Gnomes via lore are supposed to be able to use this technology, yet can't because of the lack of a technology class.

The 'more powerful types of technology' you're talking about is the same technology we use in the engineering profession. Power scale is the only difference, and again, power scale alone is not enough to base a class from. Goblins and gnomes really do use that technology. Mekkatorque and Blackfuse are a gnome and a goblin, respectively. But if you're talking players, we're back to simply power scale.

Where did I say they needed to throw away their character? They're role-playing.

I am done discussing roleplaying with you until you actually learn how roleplaying in a group/world works.

Besides, how are all those RPers going to feel when Blizzard removes all their damage items? Good luck pretending to be a tech class when you can't even throw a bomb.

Who said they are? The only one saying that is you.

No, because professions don't compete with classes.

They do compete in theme and concept. And your tinker is the exact same theme and the exact same concept as the engineer profession.

Except it would be impossible for the class to play the same as the shaman. The themes are too different.

Themes mean nothing if their gameplay is the same. And, ignoring the theme and concepts overlap for a moment, you haven't yet given a good gameplay excuse for the tinker to make it distinctive, too.

Gelbin definitely gets around, as does Grizzle Gearslip.

Really? Because 90% of the time they remains in one place.

You forgot the "hero" part. That's key to the classes. You are a hero.

I didn't. I explained it. It's part of being a player, not a class. You don't have the option of being anything but a hero.

Also again, its not just a power-boost. The abilities are completely different, and come from different schools of technology.

They're not. You were shown time and again how 'pocket factory' differs little from the 'goblin bomb dispenser'. How healing spray differs little from the 'recombobulators'. There is basically no difference, except, again, in power scale.

Despite all of this yammering, you have yet to come up with a single negative consequence for Blizzard to bring a technology class in the game.

I'm done giving you reasons and consequences if you'll just ignore them completely.

The only thing you've produced are benefits to Blizzard bringing it into the game. RPers benefit, Engineering benefits, Goblins and Gnomes benefit, and players benefit.

Proof you care about nothing but yourself, and twist words to suit your own needs.

nothing stops Blizzard from implementing this class into the game.

Theme and concept overlaps bar the tinker from existing. Every expansion, more and more technology is given to the engineering profession, making the tinker less and less viable.

Not everyone is a fan of magic and spellcasting.

Then those people should stop trying to shove their ideas down other people's throats and go play other games that would allow them to play as a tech class.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...blintinker.jpg
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...eamwarrior.jpg
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...Epictinker.jpg

Yeah, those are not happening. Especially picture #2. They go against how classes work, by having something else do all the fighting for you.

Just as likely, Blizzard would view it as fan demand and implement the class due to its perceived popularity.

Or Blizzard could be smart and see that a small handful of very vocal and insisting people does not equal popularity.

The class that has a long history in the game, is already partially made for you, and what your fanbase is demanding,

The class has zero history in the game. Engineering has a long history, tinker doesn't. They only show up in multiplayer maps, never in the campaigns, in WC3. Also, Blizzard completely ignores fan builds for new classes. They're legally bound to not use fan builds as that could open a door for lawsuits. And again, "a handful of very vocal and very insistent people" does not equal the fanbase. Counting the game's playerbase in the official, the tinker supporters barely reaches a few dozen people.

- - - Updated - - -

It will probably die

Unfortunatel, the rest of his gang (you know who you are) will probably keep this thread going.

[Rhamses]

It will probably die

Probably.

However if it does, some important points have come from this thread that should be considered in the future;

1. There's no negative gameplay consequence for a Tinker class to be added to the game.
2. If (and frankly, I think its when) Blizzard removes all damage items from Engineering, that makes a Tinker class all the more possible.
3. A technology class really does make the most sense as a future class addition.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

- - - Updated - - -

\
Unfortunatel, the rest of his gang (you know who you are) will probably keep this thread going.

You say this, yet you have more posts in this thread than Teriz....

[Deleted]

3. A technology class really does make the most sense as a future class addition.

Aye. At least more than a Demon Hunter.

[Raiju]

1. There's no negative gameplay consequence for a Tinker class to be added to the game.

Obviously, there doesn't have to be a negative gameplay consequence for any class you can imagine.

2. If (and frankly, I think its when) Blizzard removes all damage items from Engineering, that makes a Tinker class all the more possible.

If, stop pretending single alpha release with most items missing is evidence.

3. A technology class really does make the most sense as a future class addition.

Given ghostcrawler straight up said he thought it didn't fit and was lead systems designer at the time, I don't see how it has any merit whatsoever compared to demon hunter. Or any general RPG class like bard (had an amusing thought about that, given we are going to the world where there has been an elemental lord of sound... clearly there are much more elements than that of azeroth)

[Thimagryn]

No. But the abilities do need to have a Draconic theme.

Emerald Flame, Breath of Ysera and Dreamer's Touch. Kalec's Wisdom, Power Sparks, and Azure Storm. Wyrm Strike, Elemental Breath, Dragon Tail, Wings of the Aspects. Leap Attack, Power Surge, Spineshatter could all be Dragoon-based attacks.

Mechanics-wise, they can all be generic spells. Aesthetically, they are all Draconic themed.

You aren't pushing for a Titan theme. You're pushing Draconic.

Monk has a Martial Arts theme, but within that theme is Chi, Celestial Animals, Brewing and Mists. Death Knights are about Necromancy, but have Vampiric, Frost and Runic themes within that. Even the Tinker is being pushed to have Chemical themes.

Dragons are tied to the Titans. Each Aspect was blessed by a Titan. Aman'Thul, Norgannon, Eonar, and Khaz'goroth each blessed the Dragon Aspects with their power and charged them with protecting Azeroth.

You knew this didn't you?

And what is a Dragonsworn? Are they those beings who so impressed a dragon that it was granted part of its Draconic essence? In which case, it is already a warrior or mage or druid or whatever...and one of some noteworthy skill. And if it isn't...why would a Dragon share its essence? If it is just a being who studies Dragons and seeks to learn their magics and abilities...we have mages and Druids.

The Dragonsworn was a Prestige class in Dark Factions RPG book. Surprisingly enough, in the book it's listed as the 3rd class right after Death Knight and Brewmaster. If you want to know what a Dragonsworn typically is, then you can get an idea from reading about it on Wowwiki. Of course the class they talk about in that RPG is sworn only to one Dragonflight, and designed for pen and paper, but the core concept is there.

The Dragonflights know the growing power of mortals, and they hope to gather a new champion who has the potential of being the next Medivh. The dragons ensure the player remains loyal to the dragonflight and trains them accordingly, yet the player is free to remain a part of their original factions, be it Horde, Alliance, Argent Dawn or Cenarion Circle.

What is the difference between this class and Mages and Druids? Everything, considering Dragonsworn would be using fighting tactics and abilities derived from their Draconic training, rather than what they were formally taught before. This is what makes a Dragonsworn. I've listed many abilities above in this post, and you can easily see none of them are Mage or Druid abilities.

In short...what is a Dragonsworn and how would it be different from existing classes? It uses Draconic magic. Fine So does every mage. It protects the Emerald Dream. Druids. Dragosn are more powerful yes...but mainly in the way that an ArchMage is more powerful than a Mage.

It's a Champion of the Aspects. Not every mage uses Draconic magic, and you've completely skipped over all my examples. Is this because you can't properly address them, and so are conveniently ignoring them? Mages and Druids do not use Emerald Flames or Lifebinder's Essence.

Could other classes be blessed by the Dragons? Yes they could, but in the same terms that all player classes can receive Blessings from the Celestial Animals without impeding on Monk's themes.

Saving Dragon Eggs is worth a reward. But that lowly Adventurer would already be a warrior or mage. And the Dragons didn't see fit to give Rhonin their essence despite the fact he saved a Dragonflight.

Work with me here. It's an example.

We don't have a Dragonsworn class any more than we have a Tinker class. We only have characters who are in that position, such as Rhonin and Jorad Mace. It's no different than the fact that all Tinkers thus far have been referred to as Engineers, or shown to us as Warriors or Mages. There is absolutely no difference in what you bring up here.

The idea is that as a player, you are championing the cause of the Dragonflights. We've been given a hint of this all throughout Wrath of the Lich King and much deeper in Mists of Pandaria, where our players worked directly under Wrathion. This shows the Aspects are willing to seek champions to do their bidding, all they haven't done is taken them in directly and train them. With the events at the end of Cataclysm, this is the most appropriate time to seek out mortal champions to help defend the world.

That's because you keep thinking spell school is important.

Isn't that your entire argument for Mages and Druids tapping into the same sources as Dragons? Even though they don't...

As it is, right now the lore of the Dragonflights and their members is already strongly tied into several existing classes. This isn't an issue with gameplay but of an existing overlap.

Overlap is no issue when you realize the core theme of this class. Dragon theme is inherrantly Titan themed. It is a class based on Creation itself, and indirectly blessed with the powers of the Titans. The Aspects were nothing but Protodrakes, it was the Titans that gifted them their draconic forms. If a Player was gifted with the same powers, I would expect some interesting results.

The Dragonborn concept doesn't work for a class. That'd be a racial choice.
The Dragonsworn concept isn't something I'd say is impossible, but it does have issues.

TBH all of your issues have been superficial, and the biggest one is 'overlap with Mages and Druids', which is really a non-issue. Dragonsworn are blessed with powers, they don't conjure or summon to cast their spells. They tap into their own essence, which is something no Mage and Druid does.

I don't see this as anything than being nitpicky. It's like arguing against the Warlock class because they're technically Mages who turned to the dark arts. What prevents a Warlock from using Arcane and Frost spells? Nothing, but to even consider that is being wishy-washy.

[Rhamses]

Obviously, there doesn't have to be a negative gameplay consequence for any class you can imagine.

Well with DHs the problem would be making Rogues and Warlocks obsolete. I don't think there would be a problem with Bards. It would be strange to see a Bard class in WoW though.

If, stop pretending single alpha release with most items missing is evidence.

It's not just the alpha notes. Blizzard themselves said they're removing direct combat items.

Given ghostcrawler straight up said he thought it didn't fit and was lead systems designer at the time, I don't see how it has any merit whatsoever compared to demon hunter. Or any general RPG class like bard (had an amusing thought about that, given we are going to the world where there has been an elemental lord of sound... clearly there are much more elements than that of azeroth)

[/quote]

GC didn't say that. He said he wasn't sure. There's a difference.

GC said DHs had too overlap with existing classes. GC said that Bards were too soft for WoW.

Tinkers? He said they could work if implemented correctly.

[Thimagryn]

GC didn't say that. He said he wasn't sure. There's a difference.

GC said DHs had too overlap with existing classes. GC said that Bards were too soft for WoW.

GC didn't say that

He posed a question asking if there was enough design space. He didn't say anything about having too much overlap. It's as open to interpretation as his speech about Tinkers being too whimsical. It's absolutely ambiguous.

Keep in mind, they said roughly the same thing about Pandarens before Mists of Pandaria, and tried to throw people off their tracks when Worgen and Goblin were leaked through the masks.

[fixx]

It's not just the alpha notes. Blizzard themselves said they're removing direct combat items.

Wrong. They're removing those +320 stat bonuses (and the shittier secondary stat bonuses from gathering). Things like saronite bombs that do damage will stay, but are turned into BOE that all an use if they want to.

Those changes are meant to make professions:
a) not mandatory
b) absolultely free to pick any you want without negative combat effectiveness
c) able to sell anything which will turn things like rocket boots in engineering into money makers