Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Yig]

Nope. New models are new models. They are not new races. We don't get any new starting zone, we don't get any new class/race icon in the character creation skin, still the same races, same voices, same (updated for the new skeleton) animations, emotes, etc. All they get is a new paint job.

Bullshit sense, tingling. The fact they had to preserve the silhouette does not make this less of a chore than a new race would have been, it's still blows the efforts of a new race and starting area out of the water. They created multiple concepts and approaches for all manner of things before finalizing designs. Those new animations are done from scratch, just because they had an older version to base it on doesn't change that. They remade them as if they were brand new to look like they were created today from scratch, every running animation, idle stance, the way they hold their center of gravity and weight distribution, it's the same thing as making 10 brand new player races unless you're mired in the kind of literalist, binary to paper/rock/scissors thinking that is killing millions of our children daily. Think about the children. The children, Ielenia.

[Teriz]

You're arguing using game mechanics against lore and world setting. Meaningless.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about "rules" of the game universe. Are we now switching back to your silly game mechanics vs lore argument?

Because it wasn't mentioned and it's not the single issue preventing a tech-based class from existing.

What other issues are there? GC only mentioned tone.

Do you think tone is a more significant issue than overlap with the Engineering profession? GC himself said they could solve the tone problem by simply hiring a talented game designer. I think overlap with an in-game profession would require quite a bit more than that, don't you?

More likely, the so-called overlap with the Engineering profession isn't as big a deal as you think it is.

I did! Because it's relevant!

Then why didn't GC mention it? Did he simply forget?

[Yig]

Not to mention the tightrope walk of trying to do cool new things they had to balance between not pissing off people who want their old model to look the same.

[De Lupe]

I did! Because it's relevant!

It's no more relevant than Enchanting is to Mages.

Tinkers would make a perfect addition. They already fit in with Warcraft lore, would make wonderful additions for Gnomes and Goblins alike, and fill the currently missing niche of "technology" class.

I'm honestly more surprised they haven't been added already.

[Ielenia]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about "rules" of the game universe. Are we now switching back to your silly game mechanics vs lore argument?

Yup. Because I'm not talking about game rules. I'm talking 'world setting rules'. Y'know, logic and all.

What other issues are there? GC only mentioned tone.

He did mention one. What I didn't see was him mentioning it's the only one. Just because he commented about one issue, doesn't mean there aren't others. It's stupid and naíve to assume so.

Do you think tone is a more significant issue than overlap with the Engineering profession? GC himself said they could solve the tone problem by simply hiring a talented game designer. I think overlap with an in-game profession would require quite a bit more than that, don't you?

More likely, the so-called overlap with the Engineering profession isn't as big a deal as you think it is.

Just because GC didn't mention it before doesn't mean it's any less of an issue. Maybe a talented game designer manages to pitch in an idea that doesn't conflict with engineering. Maybe. But as the players' 'tinker class' idea stands now, it has zero percent of getting into WoW.

Then why didn't GC mention it? Did he simply forget?

Because it's not the sole issue and Twitter has a limited number of characters you can put in a single tweet? You can't write a bible-worth paragraph with Twitter, you know?

[Teriz]

Yup. Because I'm not talking about game rules. I'm talking 'world setting rules'. Y'know, logic and all.

Isn't that exact same thing, since the "world" you're talking about exists inside a game?

He did mention one. What I didn't see was him mentioning it's the only one. Just because he commented about one issue, doesn't mean there aren't others. It's stupid and naíve to assume so.

Don't you think he would mention the most important issue and not a trivial one?

Just because GC didn't mention it before doesn't mean it's any less of an issue. Maybe a talented game designer manages to pitch in an idea that doesn't conflict with engineering. Maybe. But as the players' 'tinker class' idea stands now, it has zero percent of getting into WoW.

Well he didn't say a talented designer, he just said it only take a designer with a "pitch perfect design". If that's all it takes, the chances of a Tinker class entering WoW as a new class is a lot higher than zero percent.

Because it's not the sole issue and Twitter has a limited number of characters you can put in a single tweet? You can't write a bible-worth paragraph with Twitter, you know?

Which takes more characters, this;

Is the Tinker a class that you feel would fit into WoW? I'd love to see it.

Not sure. Might be a little too whimsical for WoW. Would depend on the treatment.(source)
I've said before it depends on the treatment. Too easy for that class to be too wacky or precious. (Source)
A more steampunk vibe sounds cool to me. A dude in a mech having misfires that poop out springs and gears less so. (Source)
I don't know. Lucca from Chrono Trigger could work. A little bit of gnomish (tee hee) world enlarger goes a long way IMO. (Source)
But maybe one of the designers will come up with a pitch perfect design that blows us away someday. Shrug. (Source)

Or this;

Is the Tinker a class that you feel would fit into WoW? I'd love to see it.

We already have an Engineering profession.

[Thimagryn]

A profession isn't a class.

But it doesn't change the fact Engineering and a Tech class would share the same theme.

[Ielenia]

Isn't that exact same thing, since the "world" you're talking about exists inside a game?

You're being dense. Game mechanics are there to limit our interactions, as players, in the universe of Warcraft. But from a character standpoint, not a player's, a 'tinker' and an Engineer are the exact same thing.

Don't you think he would mention the most important issue and not a trivial one?

I'll repeat: he didn't mention because he wasn't asked. And a Twitter has a limited amount of characters one can use.

Well he didn't say a talented designer, he just said it only take a designer with a "pitch perfect design". If that's all it takes, the chances of a Tinker class entering WoW as a new class is a lot higher than zero percent.

Maybe 0.1%, maybe. Fact is: tinkers don't exist in WoW. Engineers do. This 'pitch perfect design' could happen, but it's a lot less likely to come from an 'ok' developer than it is to come from a talented developer. And even from a talented developer, with the way the game and world setting are now, the chances of we getting a 'pitch perfect design' for a tech class are quite slim.

Which takes more characters, this;

He was not asked about the theme overlap with engineering. But even if he was not asked, him not commenting on it out of the blue does not mean it does not exist.

[Teriz]

You're being dense. Game mechanics are there to limit our interactions, as players, in the universe of Warcraft. But from a character standpoint, not a player's, a 'tinker' and an Engineer are the exact same thing.

There is no character standpoint, because characters aren't alive and don't experience the game. The only standpoint that really exists is the player standpoint. We interact with the world and experience it, not the characters. So if Professions are different from classes to is, they're different period.

I'll repeat: he didn't mention because he wasn't asked. And a Twitter has a limited amount of characters one can use.

He was asked "Do you feel that Tinkers are a class that would fit into WoW?"

With the second set of tweets, he was asked "Thoughts on a Tinker class? If not now, maybe down the road?"

Look at he title of this thread. Its a similar question. Look how many people, including yourself, immediately said that Engineering Profession was an issue. You seriously going to try to argue that he didn't have enough characters to point out overlap with the profession when he wrote an entire paragraph about tone?

Maybe 0.1%, maybe. Fact is: tinkers don't exist in WoW. Engineers do. This 'pitch perfect design' could happen, but it's a lot less likely to come from an 'ok' developer than it is to come from a talented developer. And even from a talented developer, with the way the game and world setting are now, the chances of we getting a 'pitch perfect design' for a tech class are quite slim.

Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker. He exists in WoW.

You really think blizzard hires just "ok" developers?

He was not asked about the theme overlap with engineering. But even if he was not asked, him not commenting on it out of the blue does not mean it does not exist.

He was asked if Tinkers could be a class in WoW, and he wrote a paragraph on the only major obstacle to its inclusion; Tone. Again, almost every poster in this thread who thought there was a problem with its implementation mentioned the profession. The head of game systems for Blizzard was asked the same question at didn't mention overlap with the profession at all.

Clearly Blizzard doesn't view profession overlap as an issue like several posters in the forums do.

[Rhamses]

Just because GC didn't mention it before doesn't mean it's any less of an issue. Maybe a talented game designer manages to pitch in an idea that doesn't conflict with engineering.

I'm sorry, but if it's such a major issue, why did he completely ignore it?

Who here honestly believes that whatever the hell GC was talking about is a bigger issue than an overlap with a profession? I know you definitely don't.

[Ielenia]

There is no character standpoint, because characters aren't alive and don't experience the game. The only standpoint that really exists is the player standpoint. We interact with the world and experience it, not the characters. So if Professions are different from classes to is, they're different period.

Yeah, you're out of arguments, if you keep hiding behind game mechanics like that.

Look at he title of this thread. Its a similar question. Look how many people, including yourself, immediately said that Engineering Profession was an issue. You seriously going to try to argue that he didn't have enough characters to point out overlap with the profession when he wrote an entire paragraph about tone?

Yes. So many said that because it's true. And unless you can get the new Lead Designer of Blizzard to answer the question "does Engineering conflicts with the concept of a tech class" all you have is just conjecture and presumptions.

Gelbin Mekkatorque is a Tinker. He exists in WoW.
You really think blizzard hires just "ok" developers?

Which says something about us not having a tech class, huh?

And as for Mekkatorque, as long as there isn't a 'tech class' for you to gorge on, he's an engineer. There is no way for us to see his in-game class, although he's clearly a warrior with the engineering profession, speaking in player class/prof terms, since he wields a sword and a shield. WoWPedia and WoWWiki, despite being linked from Blizzard's website, are not official sites, therefore cannot be considered reliable.

He was asked if Tinkers could be a class in WoW, and he wrote a paragraph on the only major obstacle to its inclusion; Tone. Again, almost every poster in this thread who thought there was a problem with its implementation mentioned the profession. The head of game systems for Blizzard was asked the same question at didn't mention overlap with the profession at all.

Clearly Blizzard doesn't view profession overlap as an issue like several posters in the forums do.

He was asked a question and gave an answer. Over all of the issues there are for a tech class, he chose to speak about tone. Why tone? No one knows, only GC himself. It might not even be the biggest issue, too, just the one he chose to pick, probably because it was the easiest to explain in few words.

I think you are being stupid if you truly believe theme overlap doesn't exist simply because he chose to comment on something else.

[Teriz]

Yeah, you're out of arguments, if you keep hiding behind game mechanics like that.

Game mechanics is kind of the point of this entire thread. Classes are a "game mechanic" after all.

Yes. So many said that because it's true. And unless you can get the new Lead Designer of Blizzard to answer the question "does Engineering conflicts with the concept of a tech class" all you have is just conjecture and presumptions.

Why would we need to ask him that? Simply ask him if Tinkers could fit in the game, or his thoughts on the possibility of a Tinker class. If he doesn't mention what you view as the most glaring issue, then its not a glaring issue, except to you.

Which says something about us not having a tech class, huh?

Not really. Tinkers were the final hero unit to be introduced in WC3. A Tinker class will probably be the final class introduced in WoW. It all makes sense.

He was asked a question and gave an answer. Over all of the issues there are for a tech class, he chose to speak about tone. Why tone? No one knows, only GC himself. It might not even be the biggest issue, too, just the one he chose to pick, probably because it was the easiest to explain in few words.

Actually, he was asked the question twice by two different tweeters several weeks apart. Both times he never spoke of a profession overlap.

I think its pretty hilarious that you think explaining tone (on twitter) is easier than simply pointing out an overlap with a profession.

I think you are being stupid if you truly believe theme overlap doesn't exist simply because he chose to comment on something else.

I never said it didn't exist. I said its clearly not an issue.

[Ielenia]

Game mechanics is kind of the point of this entire thread. Classes are a "game mechanic" after all.

Nope. It's just your way of deflecting questions when you know you don't have counterarguments to the conflict of theme overlap in the world setting.

Why would we need to ask him that? Simply ask him if Tinkers could fit in the game, or his thoughts on the possibility of a Tinker class. If he doesn't mention what you view as the most glaring issue, then its not a glaring issue, except to you.

Again. Just because he didn't mention it in his tweet does not make it any less of an issue. Unless you're a mind reader or GC's closest friend/confidant/lover, you have no idea what is going on his head. He could've chosen 'tone' simply because it was the easiest to explain.

Not really. Tinkers were the final hero unit to be introduced in WC3. A Tinker class will probably be the final class introduced in WoW. It all makes sense.

Which are not canon since they don't participate in any of the story campaigns.

Actually, he was asked the question twice by two different tweeters several weeks apart. Both times he never spoke of a profession overlap.
I think its pretty hilarious that you think explaining tone (on twitter) is easier than simply pointing out an overlap with a profession.

No more hilarious than you trying to counter-argue lore and world setting arguments using game mechanics, which have nothing to do with each other.

I never said it didn't exist. I said its clearly not an issue.

It is an issue, because it exists.

[Teriz]

Nope. It's just your way of deflecting questions when you know you don't have counterarguments to the conflict of theme overlap in the world setting.

So wait...We don't play classes? We sort of have to play them because that's their purpose.

Again. Just because he didn't mention it in his tweet does not make it any less of an issue. Unless you're a mind reader or GC's closest friend/confidant/lover, you have no idea what is going on his head. He could've chosen 'tone' simply because it was the easiest to explain.

Again, if it was an issue, GC would have mentioned it as a barrier to Tinker implementation when he talked about ibarriers to Tinker implementation on two separate occasions. Sorry, you can't get around that.

Which are not canon since they don't participate in any of the story campaigns.

Gelbin Mekkatorque isn't cannon? Gazlowe Rachet isn't showing up in Heroes of the Storm as a Tinker? GC didn't talk about Tinker as if it was a possible class addition? It seems that the Tinker hero exists to Blizzard. That matters a great deal more than your personal opinion.

No more hilarious than you trying to counter-argue lore and world setting arguments using game mechanics, which have nothing to do with each other.

It all has something to do with each other, since we're talking about a video game.

It is an issue, because it exists.

Do you have any evidence? Blizzard had two opportunities to mention the major barriers to Tinker implementation, and they only mentioned tone. So, let's see some evidence from Blizzard that profession overlap is an issue.

Evidence that profession overlap isn't an issue? Enchanting and Mages. Alchemy and Monks. GC and Blizzard never mentioning profession overlap as barriers to class implementation when asked about barriers to new classes being implemented.

Your turn.

[Morbownz]

Nope, I really don't see this happening.

[Teriz]

Nope, I really don't see this happening.

Really? Why not? It exists all over WoW, has a themed hero from WC3, benefits Gnomes and Goblins, and is a unique class theme.

[Yig]

This is a race expansion. The next class expansion won't be out until 2016. We'll know what it is late next year though.

There's going to be at least one more class in WoW. Tinker seems like the most obvious choice, given its theme.

Blizzard does not follow a pattern like this, and has said in the past any class they make or theme has nothing to do with the last one or any attempt to diversify in a pattern. They work on what seems cool to them and gets them excited' NOTHING MORE.

[Teriz]

Blizzard does not follow a pattern like this, and has said in the past any class they make or theme has nothing to do with the last one or any attempt to diversify in a pattern. They work on what seems cool to them and gets them excited' NOTHING MORE.

Fair point. However, I'm willing to bet that the next expansion after WoD will have a new class.

We'll see if I'm right.

[Talen]

Maybe 0.1%, maybe. Fact is: tinkers don't exist in WoW.

Fact is, Tinkers do exist. You don't get to dismiss the universe simply because you don't like it. If you have Tinker's Union, there have to be a Tinker to be members of it.

He was not asked about the theme overlap with engineering. But even if he was not asked, him not commenting on it out of the blue does not mean it does not exist.

No, it doesn't. OTOH, it doesn't give you the right to put words in his mouth either and say there is such a problem.

Is there a thematic link between the Engineering profession and a tech based class? Sure. Technology. Hard to argue with that. I know Teriz is trying, but he's got a lost cause there.

No...the question is...does it matter? Sure....there is a thematic overlap. But its on the same scale as that of Enchanting and Mages. But then, if you design a class that is based upon throwing grenades then surely engineers may have an issue with that? But then, throwing grenades...no matter how much engineering allows cutting edge guilds to cheese encounters....has never been a major aspect of any class.

The basic truth is that the Engineering skill allows many classes to do a lot of what many envisage a Tinker class as doing. But at the same time, the classes aren't built around such tools. In addition, the tech class is so broad that it is possible to design a tech class that doesn't really intrude upon Engineering.

The goal of such a class, after all, would be a Tech USER. Not a tech creator.

EJL

[Raiju]

If Saronite Bombs had been meant to be rotational in Wrath, the internal testers would have been using them. If the internal testers had been using them, they would have noticed the bug that caused them to keep the outer ring up during the Lich King encounter. If they had noticed said bug and fixed it, the world first guild wouldn't have been disgraced after abusing it for their kill.

Saronite Bombs were a balancing error, one that they have not made again.

Yeah, saronite bombs are the only time engineering has been used, EVER.

Not like you can see gliders in methods garrosh kill to increase uptime (as I recall), or use on many fights by many guilds with nitro boost.