My Tinker Class Idea (Long)

[Victorias]

When asked about pandas right before MoP was announced they side-stepped the question a similar way, saying something along the lines of them generally being used as april fools jokes or something. I wouldnt put too much thought into the vague things they say, especially with blizzcon right around the corner.

The thing is though, Pandaren were used by Blizzard. In Warcraft but also as an April's fools joke. I haven't seen any Tinker jokes or rumors started by Blizzard alike that!

[Gamevizier]

The thing is though, Pandaren were used by Blizzard. In Warcraft but also as an April's fools joke. I haven't seen any Tinker jokes or rumors started by Blizzard alike that!

maybe it's because they were already part of the game?

Goblin alchemists... Goblin Zeppelins... Gnome flying machines... Gelbin Mekkatorque... Gnome mechsuits... Goblin shredders...etc etc.

if you ask me Tinkers are one of the most under-appreciated classes in warcraft.

[Mortifie]

The thing is though, Pandaren were used by Blizzard. In Warcraft but also as an April's fools joke. I haven't seen any Tinker jokes or rumors started by Blizzard alike that!

I have no idea what links tinkers have had to blizz at this point, all Im getting at is that I dont think the recent blue post means much. Hypothetically, lets say blizz is planning on implementing tinkers in 6.0. How would they respond to people asking about them? Well, history suggests they might respond by giving a short and trivial reason why they might not want to implement them.

[Teriz]

The thing is though, Pandaren were used by Blizzard. In Warcraft but also as an April's fools joke. I haven't seen any Tinker jokes or rumors started by Blizzard alike that!

Tinkers were also brought into WC3 as an April Fool's joke, then brought into the game fully after fan reaction.

So both have a similar history.

The plot thickens.

[Victorias]

maybe it's because they were already part of the game?

Goblin alchemists... Goblin Zeppelins... Gnome flying machines... Gelbin Mekkatorque... Gnome mechsuits... Goblin shredders...etc etc.

if you ask me Tinkers are one of the most under-appreciated classes in warcraft.

I guess that is because all of the things are tied to engineering and not tinkers as a class, I guess. Maybe blizzard simply just doesn't want the overlap since they see it as whimsical. Hmm!

[Gamevizier]

I have no idea what links tinkers have had to blizz at this point, all Im getting at is that I dont think the recent blue post means much. Hypothetically, lets say blizz is planning on implementing tinkers in 6.0. How would they respond to people asking about them? Well, history suggests they might respond by giving a short and trivial reason why they might not want to implement them.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Tinker

see the list of notable tinkers in that page? thats actually a dozen times as many as the number of notable monks that was in the game pre-MoP.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess that is because all of the things are tied to engineering and not tinkers as a class, I guess. Maybe blizzard simply just doesn't want the overlap since they see it as whimsical. Hmm!

whimsical or not, technology was always an aspect of warcraft since w2(hell, we had Oil Derricks, sub-marines and choppers in Warcraft2, it can't get any better than that!) . i don't see any class representing them do you?

mages represent arcane
warlocks represent fel magic
death knights represent death magic
druids represent nature magic
etc etc.

no class represents technology. and that's why it's going to be a unique class.

[Teriz]

I guess that is because all of the things are tied to engineering and not tinkers as a class, I guess. Maybe blizzard simply just doesn't want the overlap since they see it as whimsical. Hmm!

If that was the case, GC would have simply said that there's already Engineering in the game.

The fact that he didn't indicates that Blizzard doesn't view a class as the same thing as a profession.

[Victorias]

If that was the case, GC would have simply said that there's already Engineering in the game.

The fact that he didn't indicates that Blizzard doesn't view a class as the same thing as a profession.

I just don't think it'll happen after said blue post. It sounds like a decline. We'll have to wait and see!

[Teriz]

I just don't think it'll happen after said blue post. It sounds like a decline. We'll have to wait and see!

Actually I think it increased.

It showed that A. Blizzard doesn't view Tinkers as an overlap with Engineering, and B. Their implementation is a possibility.

[But I Hate You All]

Actually I think it increased.

It showed that A. Blizzard doesn't view Tinkers as an overlap with Engineering, and B. Their implementation is a possibility.

Nope just that they "Might be a little too whimsical for WoW"

[revjiggs]

I really like this idea I think it need a few changes but its a good start

[Teriz]

Okay, so I've completely redone this concept to make it completely revolve around the hammer tank concept. I feel that this would be the most likely path Blizzard would take if they ever implemented the Tinker concept because it aligns with their general design for the concept up to this point.

Please let me know what you think, and thanks for reading.

[Drilnos]

I've been wanting non-cloak back-mounted items since forever. This concept certainly delivers on that. I like how it's a different device for each spec and race. That ought to serve to make tinkers seem more rare than they actually would be, and would showcase the art styles of each races' mechanical contrivances. It also would limit the classic tinker arms to the rarest spec choice. I like the arms, and they belong on a tinker like warglaives belong on a demon hunter, but I get the feeling that the "too whimsical" hangup the devs had was directly related to them - a little of them goes a long way. Leaving them to the tanks would let there be a little of them. The heat/venting mechanic is interesting, but I worry that the repair mechanic would really only add anything fun to the tank spec.

Anyway, I'd play it.

[Teriz]

I've been wanting non-cloak back-mounted items since forever. This concept certainly delivers on that. I like how it's a different device for each spec and race. That ought to serve to make tinkers seem more rare than they actually would be, and would showcase the art styles of each races' mechanical contrivances. It also would limit the classic tinker arms to the rarest spec choice. I like the arms, and they belong on a tinker like warglaives belong on a demon hunter, but I get the feeling that the "too whimsical" hangup the devs had was directly related to them - a little of them goes a long way. Leaving them to the tanks would let there be a little of them. The heat/venting mechanic is interesting, but I worry that the repair mechanic would really only add anything fun to the tank spec.

Anyway, I'd play it.

I apologize for not responding to this sooner. Don't know how I missed it.

I know that some are worried about silliness or whimsical-ness with a technology concept. However, I think that the hammer tank concept would make a lot of sense, and differentiate the class from the engineering profession. I also don't think that the arms contraption is silly. I think its pretty awesome personally. Not saying you're saying that, just pointing that out before someone says something.

That said, thanks for responding. I should have the talents finished soon.

[Rhamses]

Call me crazy Teriz, but I think I prefer your Chemist concept to this.