Tinker Discussion Thread

[Rhamses]

Grasping at straws more?

Lore > than in game mechanics

That's not an in-game mechanic, that's a description of a spec.

Are specs not lore now? I mean seriously, you're accusing Teriz of grasping at straws and you're arguing that BS?

[Solzan Nemesis]

Which is why basing class arguments on lore is pretty dumb. Every major lore figure in WoW isn't a clear cut class type.

Several. Though Sylvanas is clearly just a Dark Ranger and the Lord-Regent Lor'themar seems to be...who-the-hell-knows class. Though form what I can gather the Regent-Lord might be a Hunter/Paladin hybrid class or Super Ranger... Maybe he is God class.

[Ielenia]

You do know that that text supports my argument right?

It does not. It is a purposely ambiguous statement from Blizzard just like almost all their statements. The first part goes against you, while the second favors you. The whole statement? Ambiguous, not in favor or against.

[Ellixen]

That's not an in-game mechanic, that's a description of a spec.

Are specs not lore now? I mean seriously, you're accusing Teriz of grasping at straws and you're arguing that BS?

Specs actually aren't lore since no lore character is only one spec/class...

[Drilnos]

Ever since I started playing, my main has been an engineer. Some of my fondest memories from the early days are of learning to make things like land mines and explosive sheep, of delving into the Deadmines and Gnomeregan, visiting Gadgetzan and Everlook. For the longest time I thought that engineering could be enough, if only it went just a little bit further. But it hasn't gone further. Nine years have passed as I watched the profession shrink into the three active abilities and assorted party favors it is today. When I saw the Sky Golem, when I finally made my very own shredder, that was when I had what some call a moment of clarity. Shredders are for killing. Not picking herbs. The camel's back officially broke.

Warcraft is a science fantasy setting. I'm sorry if you were operating under the delusion that it was Tolkein, but when your orcs are from an alien planet, you've crossed the Rubicon. And the character creation screen offers exactly zero options for the "science" half of that equation. Professions are not a substitute for that, and if there's one thing my nine years have taught me it's that they sure as heck never will be.

[Teriz]

~300 DPS.

So I need to know, WHY should we get a class that has the exact (as previously discussed that tinkers and engineers are the same lore-wise) theme as a profession and many similar abilities, that's just buffed...

Because a class doesn't share the exact theme of a profession. Nor does it perform the same function. Thus, a profession can't do what a class can do. For example, I can't enter a raid as an Engineer using Engineering items to perform a class role. I have to use class abilities that allow me to function properly so that my raid can succeed. Considering that no other class in the game is using technology as a theme, I'd like to be able to perform class roles using technology.

My engineering bomb does 10k every minute. My tinker bomb does 50k 6-seconds (example). The only difference between these things is the cooldown and the damage. I don't believe that justifies building an entire class dedicated to it, just to fill a niche that a few people want. IF there were hints about mounted combat, that may change things, but as of now, no.

That isn't the only difference. You have to actually find materials and construct the bombs. Your bombs don't synchronize with your class abilities. Your bombs can run out if you use them all. They take bag space. They don't scale with level. And you can sell them or trade them to other players. The differences go far beyond simply their pathetic damage and epic cooldowns.

[Rhamses]

Specs actually aren't lore since no lore character is only one spec/class...

So you're saying that lore-wise Frost Mages don't exist?

If that's the case, then ytf does the lore argument matter? If classes exist outside of lore, then lore has no bearing on class inclusion or design.

[Tatzi]

Because a class doesn't share the exact theme of a profession. Nor does it perform the same function. Thus, a profession can't do what a class can do. For example, I can't enter a raid as an Engineer using Engineering items to perform a class role. I have to use class abilities that allow me to function properly so that my raid can succeed. Considering that no other class in the game is using technology as a theme, I'd like to be able to perform class roles using technology.

Alright, so basically this is about joining a raid (or whatever other activity) and doing a role (healing/tanking/DPS) while using technology instead of any of the established classes.

In other words; you want Blizzard to form a technology class simply for looks.

That isn't the only difference. You have to actually find materials and construct the bombs. Your bombs don't synchronize with your class abilities. Your bombs can run out if you use them all. They take bag space. They don't scale with level. And you can sell them or trade them to other players. The differences go far beyond simply their pathetic damage and epic cooldowns.

Again; you just want the aesthetic. If there was a glyph that changed all hunter ability icons and animations to bombs/rockets, as well as turning your pet into a robot, then we're good.

Your side of things seems to be very, very aesthetic only.

You can start to talk about this 'supposed' class, but all of it is just hypothetical. They might have this ability or that one. That is why I will remain unconvinced. I see no reason to add this class, simply to have another hunter whose abilities revolve around rockets/bombs instead of arrows and bullets. Especially when it seems like all the NPCs use abilities in-game that mirror engineering. (With the exception of the healing spray)

[Dispraise]

Please don't dodge the question this time.

Seriously? Alright fine, I'll talk to you like you're a child if that's what you want. A farmer is someone who gets their livelihood from agriculture. That means they raise animals, and plants for a living. A shaman is a person who communes with elemental powers and uses that power to accomplish tasks. A warrior is a person who engages in warfare using their weapons and physical prowess. The three have nothing to do with one another.

Now, tell me why a tinker isn't an engineer in the lore? Please don't dodge the question this time.

[Rhamses]

It does not. It is a purposely ambiguous statement from Blizzard just like almost all their statements. The first part goes against you, while the second favors you. The whole statement? Ambiguous, not in favor or against.

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously? Alright fine, I'll talk to you like you're a child if that's what you want. A farmer is someone who gets their livelihood from agriculture. That means they raise animals, and plants. A shaman is a person who communes with elemental powers and uses that power to accomplish tasks. A warrior is a person who engages in warfare using their weapons and physical prowess. The three have nothing to do with one another.

Now, without dodging the question, tell me why a tinker isn't an engineer in the lore?

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

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

[Ellixen]

So you're saying that lore-wise Frost Mages don't exist?

If that's the case, then ytf does the lore argument matter? If classes exist outside of lore, then lore has no bearing on class inclusion or design.

Damn right, i agree with you there 100%, it's your buddy Teriz that's fighting for a lore reason why tinker's must exist even though everything in lore calls them engineers.

That's what we're arguing about.

Allow me to clarify my stance.

1. I don't like the name tinker, if you'd bother to read the earlier posts i made that quite clear when Teriz gave the option for different names.
2. Engineering is everything he wants a tinker to be albeit dumbed down yet he refuses to admit it.
3. The stance that the tinker class has to be created (by teriz) is due to the thinking that the blizz pattern is putting in wc3 heroes, yet they only put hero types based off what directly affected the lore of WC3
4. I have literally said that I don't give a crap about having an engineer class, I just don't want tinker, which the literal definition is one who travels fixing utensils for a living...

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

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

Once again if you go back through previous posts IT WAS ALREADY GIVEN!! Just 'cause you're too lazy to read doesn't make his point invalid.

A guy fighting off a dumb lumbering corpse doesn't make him a fighter/soldier, it makes him a guy fighting for his life. Does he do it for a living? NO he does not dedicate his life to defending his town from the undead. that would make him militia, is that what he's called? no he's called a farmer. because he farms.

[Ielenia]

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

Because you're only reading the last part. No matter the tone, it could still be too whimsical to WoW, as well.

[Dispraise]

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

I answered the question. The farmers of Farshire are farmers. Hence the title. And I didn't ignore shamans, either. Seems to me if you could just answer my question, we'd be done here. So why haven't you?

[Teriz]

Alright, so basically this is about joining a raid (or whatever other activity) and doing a role (healing/tanking/DPS) while using technology instead of any of the established classes.

In other words; you want Blizzard to form a technology class simply for looks.

Um no. For function. I can look like a Tinker hero now if I really wanted to. The problem is that I can't FUNCTION like one because the Engineering profession is woefully inadequate for the task.

Your side of things seems to be very, very aesthetic only.

You can start to talk about this 'supposed' class, but all of it is just hypothetical. They might have this ability or that one. That is why I will remain unconvinced. I see no reason to add this class, simply to have another hunter whose abilities revolve around rockets/bombs instead of arrows and bullets. Especially when it seems like all the NPCs use abilities in-game that mirror engineering. (With the exception of the healing spray)

Yeah, except the tinker doesn't use guns, doesn't have pets, isn't nature-based, doesn't use animal aspects, doesn't track anything, doesn't use bow and arrows, etc. Its a completely different theme and class from the Hunter. Comparing the two and pretending they're even close to being similar simply shows your ignorance.

[Rhamses]

Because you're only reading the last part. No matter the tone, it could still be too whimsical to WoW, as well.

He also said "Might be", which indicates that he's not sure it would be too whimsical. Again, it would all depend on tone. If tone is the only thing stopping a Tinker class from inclusion, let me go get my tinker-based username ready.....

[Ielenia]

Yeah, except the tinker doesn't use guns

So your Tinker is a melee class? Don't we have enough of those already? Or is it a ranged that uses just bows and crossbows?

[Gothicshark]

That's not an in-game mechanic, that's a description of a spec.

Are specs not lore now? I mean seriously, you're accusing Teriz of grasping at straws and you're arguing that BS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using current resources, and mechanics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Teriz]

A guy fighting off a dumb lumbering corpse doesn't make him a fighter/soldier, it makes him a guy fighting for his life.

LoL!! Isn't that the definition of a fighter?

[Ielenia]

Again, it would all depend on tone. If tone is the only thing stopping a Tinker class from inclusion, let me go get my tinker-based username ready.....

And even then, there is still a chance that, no matter the tone given to it, it still might be too whimsical for WoW.

[Teriz]

So your Tinker is a melee class? Don't we have enough of those already? Or is it a ranged that uses just bows and crossbows?

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