Do you want tinkers?

[Teriz]

I mean, I could see a case for a Mech for the tank spec, and a Claw-pack for the healer spec, with guns/Xbow for the DPS. But it's really such a superficial, cosmetic aspect that I don't understand why the argument has gone on for 30+ pages about it. It's just NOT that big of a deal

If you really think about it, it would make sense for Blizzard to move away from the Claw Pack concept when moving the class over to WoW. The Claw Pack was mainly there to make the diminutive Goblin hero more visible on a RTS map. Since that isn't an issue in a MMO, moving to a mech-based Tinker makes more sense. Further, the Tinker hero's ultimate ability was riding a mech, so even going that route doesn't completely alienate the concept from its roots.

Also this;



Looks better than this;

I made a post in this thread about that topic. All of the other potential classes only really fit in a very specific theme. If the expansion isn't the Dragon Isles, for example, then Dragonsworn doesn't make a lot of sense.

But Tinkers can literally fit any expansion theme because they're not really polarized to any real extreme.

I agree.

[Up The Gary]

Nope and no other classes either, I still haven't bothered playing a monk or DH yet... Fix the classes they already have.

[rhorle]

Then pull a chair and get comfortable, because you'll be waiting a long time. I have limited time available during the day and there other, more important things to do than to devote it all to browsing the internet to find interviews that were made many years ago.

In other words you can't. If you have time to post here you have time to look for quotes to back up your claims.

Also, since you like to accuse others of "not providing evidence", I've at least provided one piece of evidence regarding my claim about only the campaigns portion of WC3 being canon, while you, so far, provided no evidence whatsoever about your claim that multiplayer-only features like the extra heroes and bonus maps are canon.

No you provide a quote that doesn't say only the campaigns are canon. It just talks about the trouble with small parts of campaigns when being fleshed out for WoW. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. You used the exact same burden of proof argument earlier in this thread. I don't need to provide explicit evidence. The possibility exists that other things from WC3 are canon. Blizzard hasn't state such and even the quote you say is proof does not prove what you are claiming it does.

[Rendark]

Basic logic. Only official story campaigns can be considered canon because that's what basic logic dictates: canon are about story → the only story in WC3 are the official campaigns → only the story campaigns are canon.

What you're doing is basically saying that, in the Harry Potter world, opening Coca-Cola cards found in can packs transforms your soccer team into a Quidditch team and opens a portal to Hogwarts.

Did J. K. Rowling make the Coca-Cola cards? If so then yes it would be canon unless she said it wasn't. Canon is whatever the creators want it to be. If Blizzard came out and said only the story of warcraft 3 is canon then you would be right but you have yet to show proof of that.

[Ielenia]

But Tinkers can literally fit any expansion theme because they're not really polarized to any real extreme.

But it is polarized to a "real extreme". It's polarized toward technology.

On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that, if the tinker is not "polarized to any real extreme", then it means it also won't fit any expansion, since classes need to be "polarized to an extreme" to fit the theme of the expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words you can't. If you have time to post here you have time to look for quotes to back up your claims.

I've shown one. You, on the other hand, have yet to show any.

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. You used the exact same burden of proof argument earlier in this thread. I don't need to provide explicit evidence.

Yes, you do. I've shown you a quote where a developer talks about how they're supposed to be mindful of small details and mentions only the campaigns when talking about such small details. That's heavily indicative that only the campaigns are canon.

You, on the other hand, have shown not a single piece of evidence for your claim, that the entirety of the game is canon, even the multiplayer, other than you say it is.

The possibility exists that other things from WC3 are canon. Blizzard hasn't state such and even the quote you say is proof does not prove what you are claiming it does.

It doesn't. It's basic logic. What is not shown to be part of the story, cannot be considered part of the story.

- - - Updated - - -

Did J. K. Rowling make the Coca-Cola cards? If so then yes it would be canon unless she said it wasn't.

This line, right there, proves how you not only have no idea what 'canon' is and means, but you also refuse to understand what it is and means.

Canon is whatever the creators want it to be. If Blizzard came out and said only the story of warcraft 3 is canon then you would be right but you have yet to show proof of that.

Actually, this statement of yours is more damning to you than it is for me. Because, by default, only elements present in a story can be considered part of the story. That's basic fact. So, for something outside the story to be considered part of the story, we need the creators' word on this.

And since Blizzard has not manifested themselves regarding the canonicity of multiplayer-only features like heroes and maps, then, the default position is that they are not to be considered canon.

[rhorle]

Yes, you do. I've shown you a quote where a developer talks about how they're supposed to be mindful of small details and mentions only the campaigns when talking about such small details. That's heavily indicative that only the campaigns are canon.

No its not. It just says that small details in campaigns can cause problems with future lore. That is all it says. I also don't need to provide proof that your claim is false. You are the one that made the claim.

It doesn't. It's basic logic. What is not shown to be part of the story, cannot be considered part of the story.

Yet you are using what isn't shown to definitely prove your argument. Can't have basic logic work both ways.

[Tyrilion]

Would Prefer Fleshing and Balancing of the current classes before they add more.

[Rendark]

This line, right there, proves how you not only have no idea what 'canon' is and means, but you also refuse to understand what it is and means.

Actually, this statement of yours is more damning to you than it is for me. Because, by default, only elements present in a story can be considered part of the story. That's basic fact. So, for something outside the story to be considered part of the story, we need the creators' word on this.

And since Blizzard has not manifested themselves regarding the canonicity of multiplayer-only features like heroes and maps, then, the default position is that they are not to be considered canon.

Is that is true then show me where it says that? If you are so right then you much have proof. Now i know you have nothing and are just to stubborn to admit it but if you really do then show me. Again where does it say the story mode is the only canon?

[SirCowdog]

The Claw Pack was mainly there to make the diminutive Goblin hero more visible on a RTS map. Since that isn't an issue in a MMO, moving to a mech-based Tinker makes more sense. Further, the Tinker hero's ultimate ability was riding a mech, so even going that route doesn't completely alienate the concept from its roots.

I actually hadn't considered that. I always figured the claw pack thing was a stylistic choice, but it does make sense to make it more visible in an RTS game where there's often swarms of units all crowded together.

Also this;



Looks better than this;

There's actually a LOT of different mechs and shredders throughout WoW. I really like the idea. But the main problem I see is the same thing as druids with their forms: Getting gear doesn't have any impact on your appearance. Which, at first, might seem like a minor thing, but I believe to be VERY important to the popularity and investment in a class or character. People like to look cool! For many people much of the value of getting new gear is in the appearance.

I'm not sure if Blizzard can, or wants to, make mechs look different with each piece of gear. But it's something to think about.

[Triceron]

I actually hadn't considered that. I always figured the claw pack thing was a stylistic choice, but it does make sense to make it more visible in an RTS game where there's often swarms of units all crowded together.

I think it's both. It's oversized and dramatic to look good from an RTS perspective, but also because it was an April Fools joke.

[Switchd]

Only good tinker is a tinker with Mecha suits. Anything else is trash.

Ohhh I'd be down for that!

[SirCowdog]

But it is polarized to a "real extreme". It's polarized toward technology.

On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that, if the tinker is not "polarized to any real extreme", then it means it also won't fit any expansion, since classes need to be "polarized to an extreme" to fit the theme of the expansion.

I mean, yes and no. I went over this a bit in my initial long post about what classes could potentially be on the horizon. Steampunk and other random technological themes are all pretty well established in Warcraft lore. Airships, gyrocopters, shredders, etc. Move forward in the timeline and we have all the Iron Horde industrial stuff, and Draenei crystal-based magitech. Gnomes had an entire tech-based city all the way back in vanilla.

So while I see the point that a Tinker might not exactly fit the theme of something like a Death or Void-based expansion, or even the Dragon Isles, I think a lot depends on how much each of those expansion themes uses or focuses on tech. In a lot of ways, BfA would have been the ideal expansion for Tinkers, with all the azerite-fueled technology both the horde and alliance are using. But I think the theme could be very easily carried over into whatever the next expansion is. All it really takes is Blizzard making Tinkers fit in as a priority.

And that's the point I've been making all along: Canon or not, if Blizzard wants something in the game and the lore, they'll find a way to do it. All this arguing about what is and isn't canon means jack shit if Blizzard writes NEW canon in the next expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's both. It's oversized and dramatic to look good from an RTS perspective, but also because it was an April Fools joke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the wiki it was originally an april fools joke, but became so popular that Blizzard acutally added it as an actual neutral hero in a later patch?

[Triceron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the wiki it was originally an april fools joke, but became so popular that Blizzard acutally added it as an actual neutral hero in a later patch?

Exactly that. Even moreso than the Brewmaster, because they didn't make any changes to the Tinker design. I think even the Robogoblin look was taken straight from the April Fools.



For the Brewmaster, the Pandaren Empire was the April Fools a year or two prior, and they had reskinned Furbolgs in game with supporting concept art of a samurai-looking Pandaren. So it became so popular that by the time TFT was announced and development started, they made a model for the Pandaren Brewmaster, with a model looking just like the samurai-themed concept art. Of course, it was culturally inaccurate so they changed it to more Chinese looking clothing and that's how we got the Brewmaster tavern hero.

[Al Gorefiend]

I voted no because I want other classes. Tinker as a concept doesn't interest me. If they get added, I will try them since they are new and see how they play. Might even main if it feels good to play, but in general I just find the technical parts of wow to be an elaborate joke which is evident with naming and that almost any tech is absurd and rooted in ridiculousness. I appreciate it as the humor part of wow, I just don't feel like that they should make that part into a class.

And yes, Blizzard don't add multiple classes, they add 1 class at a time... so adding tinkers means some other class get pushed back. Also, any class that gets added also narrow down the amount of gameplay mechanics you can utilize without treading on mechanics already existing.

Here’s why I think Tinker fits so well - no other class comes close to crossing over on their theme. What I mean by this is no current class could be given a new spec or abilities that feel “Tinkery”. They kinda tried it with Hunter and Survival, but look where Survival is now. And Hunters using any form of elaborate tech kinda goes against the class’ theme of wilderness survival and outdoor ruggedness, live off the land and y’know hunt. The entire class is pretty convoluted with so many separate ideas of what makes a Hunter, since a Goblin, a Tauren and an Elf all have very different ideas of what a Hunter is, yet all have representation of some kind in their kits.

Secondly, Tinkers currently exist within WoW as an NPC class among Gnomes and Goblins, as well as the Iron Horde. If a named NPC’s primary method of combat involves using their tech and machinery to stand toe-to-toe against swords, magic and holy light, then they aren’t just warriors with the engineer profession - they are tinkers!

Thirdly, using technical brilliance as a way of combat is common among superheroes and popular culture, the same way Kung-Fu as a pillar in pop culture inspired Monks.

The more you think about Tinkers and their role within WoW the more it feels like they’ve always made enough sense to be a vanilla class.

[Ielenia]

No its not. It just says that small details in campaigns can cause problems with future lore. That is all it says. I also don't need to provide proof that your claim is false. You are the one that made the claim.

Here's the thing, though: even if my claim is proven to be false, that does not make your claim true. Meaning you still need to prove that elements outside the campaign (more specifically, the WC3 goblin tinker) are canon to the franchise.

Because even if the official campaigns aren't the only canon part of the game (which logic dictates they are), the other possible options here is that only the campaigns AND the official bonus map are, but not the hero units, for example. Or perhaps only a small selection of them, but not them all.

Yet you are using what isn't shown to definitely prove your argument. Can't have basic logic work both ways.

Not quite like you think. The guy was talking about the small details, and he only mentioned the campaigns. The way you're acting, even if I show you a quite where the question is "what is canon to franchise in warcraft 3?" and the developer answers with "the campaigns", you'd come and say "Ah, but he didn't say the rest of the game isn't canon."

- - - Updated - - -

Is that is true then show me where it says that? If you are so right then you much have proof. Now i know you have nothing and are just to stubborn to admit it but if you really do then show me. Again where does it say the story mode is the only canon?

Dude, think with your brain for a change, here.

• Fact one: what is not explicitly shown to be part of a story, should not be considered part of said story.
• Fact two: what is not explicitly shown to be part of a story, needs the author's confirmation to be considered part of the story.
• Fact three: the WC3 goblin tinker is not explicitly shown to be part of the Warcraft 3 story (i.e. the official campaigns).

Conclusion: unless author/developer confirmation, the WC3 goblin tinker should not be considered part of the story.

Otherwise you could consider the Transformers to be canon to the Harry Potter franchise. I mean, hey, we never heard J.K. Rowling say that the Transformers franchise is not canon to the Harry Potter lore. Have you?

[rhorle]

Here's the thing, though: even if my claim is proven to be false, that does not make your claim true. Meaning you still need to prove that elements outside the campaign (more specifically, the WC3 goblin tinker) are canon to the franchise.

If your claim is false then mine is automatically true. I have only ever claimed it is possible. I haven't stated that Blizzard has made it clear other things are canon. Only that they have not definitively stated only X is canon.

Or perhaps only a small selection of them, but not them all.

See. Now we know your bias is showing. You are willing to accept some neutral heroes as canon despite only being a neutral hero in WC3 but dismiss one simply for being a neutral hero. You just admitted that my point is true. Neutral Heros can potentially be canon. I didn't even have to back it up since you agreed to my point.

Not quite like you think. The guy was talking about the small details, and he only mentioned the campaigns. The way you're acting, even if I show you a quite where the question is "what is canon to franchise in warcraft 3?" and the developer answers with "the campaigns", you'd come and say "Ah, but he didn't say the rest of the game isn't canon."

Because that is a loaded question with an answer that fits your narrative. You already showed your bias by stating that other neutral heroes can potentially be canon but not tinkers just because. More then one thing can be canon even though you answer an interviewer with one of the types.

From the same article you keep taking as proof of your biased view we also have the Manuals being stated to be canon. (https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/08...warcrafts-lore)

The Warcraft universe’s narrative seeds were planted in “the RTS games and literally the instruction manuals written by Chris Metzen in the mid-’90s,” he says.

The full quote you keep referencing clearly doesn't refer to the only. It is refering to a situation that appeared in the past that they try to follow

“We’re trying to build epic worlds, epic experiences,” Hazzikostas explains. “And yes, we do find ourselves fettered by something that was a small piece of a campaign in an RTS game when no one ever imagined for a moment this was going to be taken and built into a world of this scale – and it gets in the way of telling the story we need to tell.” When that happens, things are “flexible.”

Nothing says only the campaign is canon from that quote. It just says that small parts of the campaign are not ignored unless there is no other option.

“Hearthstone definitely doesn’t count. Heroes of the Storm definitely doesn’t count. World of Warcraft is the anchor, and then it’s expanded upon by related books and other pieces,” Hazzikostas explains.

We also have this gem. Notice how he doesn't say that everything but the campaigns do not count from WC3. Doesn't really mention it and as I pointed out before parts of the Manuals are considered to be canon (unless they have been changed by other lore). They changed Khadgar to be "younger" partly because of the movie so they open to making non-canon stuff reflect in the Warcraft canon. The movie is considered to be a cinematic universe given certain changes that don't align with the existing/current lore.

[Rendark]

Dude, think with your brain for a change, here.

• Fact one: what is not explicitly shown to be part of a story, should not be considered part of said story.
• Fact two: what is not explicitly shown to be part of a story, needs the author's confirmation to be considered part of the story.
• Fact three: the WC3 goblin tinker is not explicitly shown to be part of the Warcraft 3 story (i.e. the official campaigns).

Conclusion: unless author/developer confirmation, the WC3 goblin tinker should not be considered part of the story.

Of course tinkers aren't part of the story, they are part of the canon. They are in the world the story takes place in. So they are canon to the world of warcraft 3. So where does it say the story of the only thing that's canon?

[LorDC]

But the main problem I see is the same thing as druids with their forms: Getting gear doesn't have any impact on your appearance. Which, at first, might seem like a minor thing, but I believe to be VERY important to the popularity and investment in a class or character. People like to look cool! For many people much of the value of getting new gear is in the appearance.

Yes, druids have been asking for some way to show off their gear ever since vanilla. But they still are the most popular class in WoW. So, apparently, it's not that big of a problem.

[Teriz]

I actually hadn't considered that. I always figured the claw pack thing was a stylistic choice, but it does make sense to make it more visible in an RTS game where there's often swarms of units all crowded together.



There's actually a LOT of different mechs and shredders throughout WoW. I really like the idea. But the main problem I see is the same thing as druids with their forms: Getting gear doesn't have any impact on your appearance. Which, at first, might seem like a minor thing, but I believe to be VERY important to the popularity and investment in a class or character. People like to look cool! For many people much of the value of getting new gear is in the appearance.

I'm not sure if Blizzard can, or wants to, make mechs look different with each piece of gear. But it's something to think about.

A solution to that problem would be just to create a variety of mechs that a Tinker could pilot. There's already several models in the game, and Blizzard could use those, or just create a set of exclusive mechs for the class. Blizzard could also give the class a "garage" feature where you could customize your mech with different parts or colors, or Blizzard could just do what they did with Druids in Legion and give them a lot of options for colors and appearances.

This is also why I think you should limit Tinkers to just a small number of races, because that would allow Blizzard to give the class much more customization.

[SirCowdog]

Yes, druids have been asking for some way to show off their gear ever since vanilla. But they still are the most popular class in WoW. So, apparently, it's not that big of a problem.

Most popular based on what data? And you also have to consider that druids can fill all 4 roles on one class(RDPS, MDPS, Tank, Heals), and has instant flying and stealth.

That doesn't mean that the issue with appearance isn't still a problem, nor that it wouldn't be a bigger problem in the case of any potential Tinker class that COULDN'T fill all 4 roles with stealth and insta-flight.

That brings up another issue, however: How do mech-suits interact with quest vehicles or mounts? IIRC, sometimes druid forms revert back to humanoid form, and sometimes they don't. Would be an additional technical hurdle to overcome with the class.

- - - Updated - - -

A solution to that problem would be just to create a variety of mechs that a Tinker could pilot. There's already several models in the game, and Blizzard could use those, or just create a set of exclusive mechs for the class. Blizzard could also give the class a "garage" feature where you could customize your mech with different parts or colors, or Blizzard could just do what they did with Druids in Legion and give them a lot of options for colors and appearances.

This is also why I think you should limit Tinkers to just a small number of races, because that would allow Blizzard to give the class much more customization.

I actually tend to agree that Legion's approach to druid form appearances was good.