Will Tinkers be a class in WoW?

[Teriz]

It does.

You just told another poster it doesn't. Which is it?

What evidence? Titles are evidence of nothing, other than status, not class.

The abilities.

Priests = Holy magic; Mages = Arcane/fire/frost magic; Therefore Priests =/= Mages.
Engineering = Goblin/Gnome tech; Helix Blackfuse = Goblin tech; Therefore Engineering = Blackfuse.

Except we're talking about the profession here.

There is nothing illogical about smashing someone's head with a bottle or keg of beer. It just doesn't make sense to you.

Where does the Monk store all of those kegs for Keg smash?

It does. You just refuse to see it because you're again arguing game mechanics and demanding 'very specific examples' to try to fight back.

If it doesn't represent it in game mechanics, how does it represent it in lore? Blackfuse isn't using the Engineering profession, he's using some super advanced form of engineering.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're suggesting that because different types of Technology as different as Mages and Priests, Engineering and Tech Class can exist. Yet when you put it that way, it also means multiple Technology Classes can exist because they're different like Mages and Priests. You just ran into another logical fallacy there.

Where's the logical fallacy? Of course multiple tech classes could exist, if Blizzard were so inclined to do so. There's at least 5 branches of technology in WoW, and another is coming up in WoD with the Iron Horde.

As another poster said, we're just asking for one.

The more you come up with bullshit analogies, the deeper the hole you're digging for your argument. You can't escape the fact that Engineering uses Technology, and a Technology-based class is inescapable from that theme.

And again, Enchanting uses magic, and all magic based classes use that same theme.

Yet almost half the classes in WoW are magic based.

[Thimagryn]

What, exactly, is logically fallacious about that? Tinkers are not the only tech class. They're the only ones that people are pulling for because they're the most iconic. Besides the goblin and gnome branches there are branches for Naaru, Ethereal, Demon, Scourge, and Titan engineering, along with flavors corresponding to every available race, including the ones generally associated with nature. Then again, if you combine all of the combat styles associated with engineering in the lore, you've got something like nine or ten specs worth of material. Everything from gunslingers, mech pilots and airmen on down through sappers, apothecaries and artillerymen. Do they all have the "technology" theme? Yes. Is the technology theme broad enough to contain several classes? Also yes.

But again, nobody's asking for four or five tech classes. One would be nice.

It's exactly that. So you're saying 'Magic encompasses so much, but we only need one Magic class'. So what Magic class do we know of uses all types of magic in one? Do we need a Guardian class to represent this? Would a Guardian Class then overlap with every other magic-using class? The implication is due to a train of thought that is wrong.

The theme of Technology is not different whether it is Goblin or Gnomish. This is already represented in Engineering, who has both Gnomish and Goblin incorporated as sub-professions within it. If Naaru and Legion technology were to be explored further, it would also be incorporated into Engineering, because it covers the theme. In fact, we do have legion technology, since Engineers can build Legion-based Personal World Destroyers.

So no, there are not 5+ types of Technology, there is one broad Technology scope in which all types are a part of. A Technology Class make use of that theme.

[Drilnos]

The issue that comes with that are players who will start to argue 'why can't I do that since I'm an engineer too'.

Enchanting is arcane magic. Enchanting materials are crystallized mana, obtained by casting dispel magic on items. Enchanting recipes are spells cast on items. Furthermore, enchantment is one of the seven basic schools of arcane magic, and in addition to the utility of producing items for sale it is the source of the mage's ability to dispel magic and the trick behind some high-level spells which are obviously never going to be added to the profession.

The Schools of Arcane Magic - Enchantment

<Penned by the skilled hand of Archmage Ansirem Runeweaver>

Enchantment is the process of imbuing an object - or person - with magical power. Some enchantments are temporary, while others can offer permanent benefits. Enchanting can be difficult to learn, but it is one of the most potentially lucrative forms of magic to study. I highly encourage the study of enchanting, as it is one of the studies of magic that is least likely to culminate in my own destruction.

Disenchanting is the process of dispelling or removing magic. The dispel magic spell is among the most important in a mage's arsenal, as it can potentially reverse the catastrophic effects of a misfired spell. It is also possible to permanently disenchant a magical item. This produces a unique form of crystallized mana that can be used in the process of imbuing another item with magical abilities. While this can get expensive, it is often one of the best ways for a young mage to study the enchanting process.

While he has already previously been mentioned for his skill in abjuration, Prince Kael'thas Sunstrider is also considered one of the foremost masters of enchanting in our time. He has not only mastered the creation of potent magical weapons, but the prince has also learned to manipulate these objects remotely, allowing them to fight on their own. This can quickly allow the prince to fight as if he was defended by several skilled guardians even when he is completely by himself. A potent defense, indeed.

Source: http://wowpedia.org/The_Schools_of_A..._-_Enchantment

Enchanting is a mage skill. Not just a mage skill, a basic mage skill, one of the seven schools every mage is supposed to know forwards and backwards. The canon says so, with zero ambiguity. And yet mages can be mages and not be able to enchant items. And nobody says anything. Or in your case, vigorously denies everything.

[Talen]

So you're suggesting that because different types of Technology as different as Mages and Priests, Engineering and Tech Class can exist. Yet when you put it that way, it also means multiple Technology Classes can exist because they're different like Mages and Priests. You just ran into another logical fallacy there.

I don't see it. Mages and Priests are two different flavors of casters. Likewise, multiple tech themed classes could exist. The game really only needs one though.

EJL

[Ielenia]

The abilities.

Funny. My character has a ton of titles. None of them grant me any new abilities. Titles mean nothing other than status. They're just titles. Titles don't mean abilities. That's a wrong argument, it's a false statement.

Except we're talking about the profession here.

I'm talking about engineering in Azeroth. Not the game's engineering profession.

Where does the Monk store all of those kegs for Keg smash?

You do know that this question hurts your arguments more than it does mine, right? But I'll humor you: in the backpack.

he's using some super advanced form of engineering.

Thank you for agreeing with me and giving up on your previous arguments.

Where's the logical fallacy? Of course multiple tech classes could exist, if Blizzard were so inclined to do so. There's at least 5 branches of technology in WoW, and another is coming up in WoD with the Iron Horde.

Five 'branches' that do the exact same thing. Create the same stuff. Use the same stuff. A mage cannot cast holy magic. But an enginner can create any kind of technolgy.

And again, Enchanting uses magic, and all magic based classes use that same theme.
Yet almost half the classes in WoW are magic based.

Enchanting uses magic reagents. Big difference. And we have all flavors of mana. Holy, Shadow, Fel, Fire, Nature, etc. Each requiring very specific kinds of individuals to wield them. Technology, no matter the branch, can do only one thing: create tech gadgets. Any engineer can craft any tech item provided he has the schematics.

[Drilnos]

It's exactly that. So you're saying 'Magic encompasses so much, but we only need one Magic class'. So what Magic class do we know of uses all types of magic in one? Do we need a Guardian class to represent this? Would a Guardian Class then overlap with every other magic-using class? The implication is due to a train of thought that is wrong.

The theme of Technology is not different whether it is Goblin or Gnomish. This is already represented in Engineering, who has both Gnomish and Goblin incorporated as sub-professions within it. If Naaru and Legion technology were to be explored further, it would also be incorporated into Engineering, because it covers the theme. In fact, we do have legion technology, since Engineers can build Legion-based Personal World Destroyers.

So no, there are not 5+ types of Technology, there is one broad Technology scope in which all types are a part of. A Technology Class would be included in that theme.

In point of fact I'm saying Technology encompasses so much, but we only need one Technology class, because some people, for reasons which mystify me, appear to have a bug up their ass about even having one. There are at least as many flavors of technology as there are flavors of magic. The fact that there's a profession which they could all theoretically be dumped into, even though they aren't, is neither here nor there. And your gall to compare a real fel reaver to the wind-up toys engineers make amuses me. Wait no, it doesn't. Wherever it did come from, that schematic did not come from the Legion. It's a cheap goblin knockoff.

[Thimagryn]

I don't see it. Mages and Priests are two different flavors of casters. Likewise, multiple tech themed classes could exist. The game really only needs one though.

EJL

Technology's flavours exist within the context of their own theme, there is no subclassification of Technology that warrants multiple themes. This is shown in the fact that Engineering has Gnomish and Goblin racial subprofessions within the overarching 'Technology' theme.

[Talen]

It's exactly that. So you're saying 'Magic encompasses so much, but we only need one Magic class'. So what Magic class do we know of uses all types of magic in one?

Non. You are over generalising. Mages and Priests have a different design space so get their own classes despite the fact they are both casters.

Likewise...you could create several tech themed classes each with their own design space, but the reality is - just as Blizzard could have gotten away with one caster class but chose not to, it can get away with one tech class.

So no, there are not 5+ types of Technology, there is one broad Technology scope in which all types are a part of. A Technology Class make use of that theme.

There's enough breadth in the tech system to justify several classes, just as the breadth of Magic justified the creation of several magic classes. Blizzard could choose to create several tech classes as it did with Magic, or it could choose one just as it could have done with magic.

there is no subclassification of Technology

There's no sub classification for magic either by that reasoning. Blizzard can choose to develop each style or flavor, or it could attach the tech theme to multiple or single classes

EJL

[Drilnos]

Enchanting uses magic reagents.

Disenchanting is the process of dispelling or removing magic. The dispel magic spell is among the most important in a mage's arsenal, as it can potentially reverse the catastrophic effects of a misfired spell. It is also possible to permanently disenchant a magical item. This produces a unique form of crystallized mana that can be used in the process of imbuing another item with magical abilities. While this can get expensive, it is often one of the best ways for a young mage to study the enchanting process.

It is also possible to permanently disenchant a magical item. This produces a unique form of crystallized mana that can be used in the process of imbuing another item with magical abilities.

This produces a unique form of crystallized mana

mana

Enchanting reagents are mana, as it is represented by the profession system. This is lore. What you have is not lore, it is made-up bullshit. Which is frankly ironic for someone who claims to only care about the lore.

[Ielenia]

Likewise...you could create several tech themed classes each with their own design space, but the reality is - just as Blizzard could have gotten away with one caster class but chose not to, it can get away with one tech class.

There's enough breadth in the tech system to justify several classes, just as the breadth of Magic justified the creation of several magic classes. Blizzard could choose to create several tech classes as it did with Magic, or it could choose one just as it could have done with magic.

There's no sub classification for magic either by that reasoning. Blizzard can choose to develop each style or flavor, or it could attach the tech theme to multiple or single classes

EJL

No, no there is not 'breath in the tech system to justify several classes'. A priest cannot cast any mage spell, no matter how much he tries. A shaman cannot cast any druid spell. A warlock cannot cast any holy spells.

That, however, is not true with technology. Any engineer can craft anything any other engineer can craft, regardless of specialization, or 'sub classification'. Any gnome can craft any goblin tech provided the schematics. So much so Gelbin ordered his gnomes to salvage as much goblin tech for studies during the Siege of Orgrimmar.

Enchanting reagents are mana, as it is represented by the profession system. This is lore. What you have is not lore, it is made-up bullshit. Which is frankly ironic for someone who claims to only care about the lore.

Fine. Alright. I admit, I was wrong about enchanting.

[Thimagryn]

Non. You are over generalising. Mages and Priests have a different design space so get their own classes despite the fact they are both casters.

That's because they are different classes. They have different design space because they are different classes. This is no different than saying a Warrior and a Mage also have different design space, because classes are autonomous from each other and are not meant to be compared. They provide their own experiences, guided by gameplay, not theme. Theme does not have any influence over Design Space.

Yet when we talk about Theme specifically, there is no way a Technology class can avoid sharing the same theme with Engineering. Technology itself is that theme.

[Rhamses]

The issue that comes with that are players who will start to argue 'why can't I do that since I'm an engineer too'.

Why would they argue that when they're partaking in a profession? That's like Enchanters asking why they can't cast flamestrike or arcane explosion. I think players are smarter than you give them credit for.

The 'Engineer' was originally a class in WoW classic pre-launch, but it was turned into a profession due to everyone wanting to do what engineering does.

Do you have any evidence of this? Not saying you're not being truthful, I just never heard that story before.

[Drilnos]

That's because they are different classes. They have different design space because they are different classes. This is no different than saying a Warrior and a Mage also have different design space, because classes are autonomous from each other and are not meant to be compared. They provide their own experiences, guided by gameplay, not theme. Theme does not have any influence over Design Space.

Yet when we talk about Theme specifically, there is no way a Technology class can avoid sharing the same theme with Engineering. Technology itself is that theme.

And that means precisely nothing. "Technology" is a theme that, indeed, they both would share. But Technology is a huge theme, with a couple thousand mini-themes squirming around inside it. Like saying there's not enough room in the "European" theme left to include the Norwegians when the Italians are already playable, because having that one extremely general thing in common means that they're basically the same thing.

[Teriz]

Funny. My character has a ton of titles. None of them grant me any new abilities. Titles mean nothing other than status. They're just titles. Titles don't mean abilities. That's a wrong argument, it's a false statement.

Its only a title if you're sharing the same abilities. The Engineering profession isn't a class, and it doesn't share abilities with Siegecrafters, Mekgineers, or Tinkers.

I'm talking about engineering in Azeroth. Not the game's engineering profession.

Which is BS because your entire argument revolves around the notion that the Engineering profession takes all of the design space of a technology class.

You do know that this question hurts your arguments more than it does mine, right? But I'll humor you: in the backpack.

There's no kegs in my Monk's backpack.

Thank you for agreeing with me and giving up on your previous arguments.

I didn't agree with you. I agreed with the OP who is actually sticking to their arguments instead of flip flopping around from lore to game mechanics.

Five 'branches' that do the exact same thing. Create the same stuff. Use the same stuff. A mage cannot cast holy magic. But an enginner can create any kind of technolgy.

Gnomes don't create shredders. Goblins don't build mechastriders. Goblins prefer a more chemical bent in their tech. Gnomes prefer more electrical-based tech. Different from all of that is the Naaru technology that is more crystal/magic-based. Titan Technology and Fel Technology is different from all of those and each other. The Iron Horde's tech is based around the Iron Star which was invented by Helix Blackfuse, but has little to do with Goblin tech.

So no, they're not the same thing. Hell, you could have all 6 of those tech types build a flying machine, and all 6 would be vastly different from each other.

Enchanting uses magic reagents. Big difference. And we have all flavors of mana. Holy, Shadow, Fel, Fire, Nature, etc. Each requiring very specific kinds of individuals to wield them. Technology, no matter the branch, can do only one thing: create tech gadgets. Any engineer can craft any tech item provided he has the schematics.

Your argument was thoroughly debunked.

[Yig]

What, exactly, is logically fallacious about that? Tinkers are not the only tech class. They're the only ones that people are pulling for because they're the most iconic. Besides the goblin and gnome branches there are branches for Naaru, Ethereal, Demon, Scourge, and Titan engineering, along with flavors corresponding to every available race, including the ones generally associated with nature. Then again, if you combine all of the combat styles associated with engineering in the lore, you've got something like nine or ten specs worth of material. Everything from gunslingers, mech pilots and airmen on down through sappers, apothecaries and artillerymen. Do they all have the "technology" theme? Yes. Is the technology theme broad enough to contain several classes? Also yes.

But again, nobody's asking for four or five tech classes. One would be nice.

Oh look, it's Yig.

And yet we can't have demonic melee fighters, because demons are the sole property of warlocks, according to the same people saying there is more nuance to technological themes than demonic themes. The special pleading and hair splitting is just a graveyard of opinions on this forum filled with thousands of desecrated analogies.

[Ielenia]

Its only a title if you're sharing the same abilities. The Engineering profession isn't a class, and it doesn't share abilities with Siegecrafters, Mekgineers, or Tinkers.

It's just a title. Titles don't mean power, titles don't mean abilities. Where have you ever taken the notion that titles mean abilities?

Which is BS because your entire argument revolves around the notion that the Engineering profession takes all of the design space of a technology class.

And it does.

There's no kegs in my Monk's backpack.

There are in mine.

Gnomes don't create shredders. Goblins don't build mechastriders. Goblins prefer a more chemical bent in their tech. Gnomes prefer more electrical-based tech.

Are you telling me that, in the world of Azeroth, in the lore, if I approach a goblin engineer with the mechanostrider schematic, and pay him to make one, he won't be able to do it? Or if I approach a goblin with a shredder schematic, they won't be able to built it? Of course they will.

With the magic is different. A mage is unable to cast holy magic. A priest is unable to cast elemental magic. A shaman is unable to cast shadow magic. A warlock cannot cast nature magic. And so on.

The Iron Horde's tech is based around the Iron Star which was invented by Helix Blackfuse, but has little to do with Goblin tech.

Right. Teach goblin engineering and they automatically will know a different kind of engineering. Wrong. If you teach them goblin engineering, they'll know and use goblin engineering.

So no, they're not the same thing. Hell, you could have all 6 of those tech types build a flying machine, and all 6 would be vastly different from each other.

That 'vastly different thing' is simply a matter of artistic taste of the engineer. Any kind of engineering will be able to build any kind of 'flying machine' built by the other 'sub-sections' of engineering if they had the schematic. Simple as that.

Your argument was thoroughly debunked.

About enchanting? Yes, it was. About everything else? Not even close.

[zimzum2523]

Why would they turn a profession into a whole class? The whole concept is just super lame. Whats next a blacksmith class?

[Teriz]

Oh look, it's Yig.

And yet we can't have demonic melee fighters, because demons are the sole property of warlocks, according to the same people saying there is more nuance to technological themes than demonic themes. The special pleading and hair splitting is just a graveyard of opinions on this forum filled with thousands of desecrated analogies.

Two entirely different things. Warlocks are already demonic melee fighters while in Dark Apotheosis. Also Warlock is a class and had several DH abilities. The Engineering profession is not a class, and has none of the Tinker abilities.

[Nightsorrow12]

I voted 0%.
I just dont see the playable aspect of a 'tinker'. Considering the definition of what a tinker is... It's a fixer upper. Meaning something was broken or already created. Engineering is the aspect of creating, so would tinkers just fix engineers creations? Only way this would be viable is if the tinker had the engineering profession or was an engineer himself.
So what does a Tinker tink for this to work? Please help me understand.
It would be cool if they tinkered the armor or weapons of players, creating a new role "support" but doubt they would implement something like this.

[Talen]

That's because they are different classes. They have different design space because they are different classes. This is no different than saying a Warrior and a Mage also have different design space, because classes are autonomous from each other and are not meant to be compared. They provide their own experiences, guided by gameplay, not theme. Theme does not have any influence over Design Space.

Yet when we talk about Theme specifically, there is no way a Technology class can avoid sharing the same theme with Engineering. Technology itself is that theme.

Why would this be an issue? No one complains about Enchanting sharing a thematic overlap with Mages.

Thing is....in addition to this, you are kinda assuming that the class will be a Tinker. Now...Tinker conjures up images of a wild eyed crazy inventor. Someone who actually creates the engineering marvels.

But a class? A class wouldn't be creating the tech. Certainly not as a primary function. The class would be a user. Not a creator. Creation is the function of the profession.

Put it another way...take the gunman, steam warrior and sapper classes. Link them to the engineering profession - beyond a "tech" theme.

And yet we can't have demonic melee fighters, because demons are the sole property of warlocks, according to the same people saying there is more nuance to technological themes than demonic themes. The special pleading and hair splitting is just a graveyard of opinions on this forum filled with thousands of desecrated analogies.

Yes - you can't have demon hunters. And for the same reason you won't get these different tech flavor classes. The class concept works for one class. There is no "Caster" themed class....there are caster classes each with theme own theme. You can ask for tech to go the same way - either a straightforward single tech class, or a diversified class structure where the underlying tech theme is broken into different specialisations.

The latter was done for Mages, Warlocks and Priests. Instead of a single class with DPS, Pet DPS and heal trees Blizzard made each one a class. Same choice with tech....

There is no hair splitting here. There is not even a need for the same decision to be made.

EJL