A time skip in 10.0 would make Tinkers possible.

[Teriz]

Teriz, your claim "follows basic logic" as much as someone with 50 points in a breathalyzer can walk in a straight line. It's "flat earth" levels of illogical. Basic logic states characters cannot "learn things spontaneously".

Prove it, because according to the game my character learns several abilities spontaneously. I'm afraid I need a statement from Blizzard that disproves what I observe in the game.

Gameplay being changed did not change the origins of the spell, and the origins are still valid today so it's a "blood" ability despite not being available to blood... but when gameplay is changed to not require you to stop leveling in Feralas to go Darnassus to learn new spells from your class trainer, then that shit is gone forever, never to be lore again?

Again... double-standards.

I never said you didn't learn some abilities from your trainer. I'm just saying that you didn't learn ALL of your abilities from your trainer. Some you learn on your own. Gameplay backs that up.

I'm sorry, Teriz. You can't say "gameplay reflects lore" and then say it doesn't when you're presented with an example that showcases how dumb your assertion is. The only "absurd point" here is your claim that our characters learn everything on their own. If our characters "learning abilities on their own" is canon lore, then our characters being able to effortlessly carry over 30 tons of weight is also canon lore.

Except I never made that argument.

But it's not a fact. A gameplay mechanic is not a lore fact, Teriz. Are you going to say our characters stop existing in the lore when we log out of the game? Are you going to say that all heroes are telepathically linked because we can communicate with others across an entire zone through the general chat, or across literal worlds with the "whisper" command?

I never said any of that. I'm simply saying that your character clearly learns some abilities without the aid of a trainer.

No, Teriz. It's actually your burden to prove it. Because, and I'll explain once again. Gameplay mechanics is not lore. Our characters no longer needing to visit trainers is a gameplay concession, not lore. Our characters already knowing one or two abilities at level 1 when we start the game is also not evidence, because it's another gameplay concession.

Well that's easy; Just start a new character and log in to WoW. Right off that bat you'll see an ability in your tool bar. You learned this ability before you even meet your trainer. In WoW Classic, you'll magically learn talent points that you can allocate without any trainer around.

There you go, I proved it.

- - - Updated - - -

What Tinker ability polymorphs enemies into Robot Chickens?

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=133362...obumorphanator

Very whimsical Not very practical.

Whatever you explained right here though, isn't the Warcraft 3 Alchemist Transmute ability. So despite whatever you're proposing, the Tinker still wouldn't have the Alchemist's ability, instead they get some awkward whimisical metal-transmutation ability that is usable on allies.

Turning targets to gold and instantly killing them IS the WC3 Alchemist transmute ability. I'm merely giving it a support-based attribute.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true. Warriors can be very deadly with mere punches (see Garrosh vs. Thrall), while hunters can always rely on their mighty pet.

You're talking about the lore, I'm talking about the class. In terms of the class, many of their abilities can't be used without an equipped weapon or shield.

[Triceron]

https://www.wowhead.com/spell=133362...obumorphanator

You mean an ability of Millie Watt <Ultra-Master Engineeress>?

An ability that is extremely similar to https://www.wowhead.com/item=153487/...lation-grenade that is already available in Engineering?

I already pointed out how all of this is tied to Engineering, you aren't making much of a case by reinforcing my argument.

Turning targets to gold and instantly killing them IS the WC3 Alchemist transmute ability. I'm merely giving it a support-based attribute.

Yeah, both of which are completely out of place with the WC3/Heroes of the Storm Tinker concept, or with Mekkatorque, Gazlowe and Blackfuse. You keep veering further and further away from the core concept into more and more whimsical territory, and you wonder why the Tinker would not be taken seriously.

[Teriz]

You mean an ability of Millie Watt <Ultra-Master Engineeress>?

An ability that is extremely similar to https://www.wowhead.com/item=153487/...lation-grenade that is already available in Engineering?

A bomb that turns a target into a giraffe =/= A beam that turns a target into a robotic chicken that damages itself

Yeah, both of which are completely out of place with the WC3/Heroes of the Storm Tinker concept, or with Mekkatorque, Gazlowe and Blackfuse.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Triceron]

A bomb that turns a target into a giraffe =/= A beam that turns a target into a robotic chicken that damages itself

And neither are Tinker abilities. Both are derived from Engineering and Engineer NPCs.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think that's super obvious. We're not even talking about the same class any more, you're talking about Alchemists with a Tinker spec or simply Engineers.

[Ielenia]

Prove it, because according to the game my character learns several abilities spontaneously.

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

I never said you didn't learn some abilities from your trainer. I'm just saying that you didn't learn ALL of your abilities from your trainer. Some you learn on your own. Gameplay backs that up.

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

Except I never made that argument.

You made the argument that our characters learn all their abilities on their own because the game doesn't require us to visit trainers anymore. And if that is the logic you're going with, then everything I said about our characters' strength is also lore. You can't pick-and-choose when "gameplay = lore" applies.

I never said any of that. I'm simply saying that your character clearly learns some abilities without the aid of a trainer.

No, Teriz. You are saying exactly that when you reasoning is "because the game mechanics work that way."

Well that's easy; Just start a new character and log in to WoW. Right off that bat you'll see an ability in your tool bar.

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

[arkanon]

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

So just to be clear, you are saying gameplay = lore, yes?

[Teriz]

Teriz. Game mechanics are not lore. How is it that such a basic concept escapes you?

Your opinion isn't lore either.

Once again, get a statement from Blizzard saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from a trainer, because in WoW you don't.

You made the argument that our characters learn all their abilities on their own because the game doesn't require us to visit trainers anymore. And if that is the logic you're going with, then everything I said about our characters' strength is also lore. You can't pick-and-choose when "gameplay = lore" applies.

I never said all. I said that you clearly learn some of your abilities without the trainer. This happened in Classic/Vanilla WoW as well.

Let me know when you get that statement from Blizzard that contradicts what we see in the game.

[Ielenia]

Your opinion isn't lore either.

It's not an opinion that game mechanics is not lore.

Once again, get a statement from Blizzard saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from a trainer, because in WoW you don't.

Teriz, you're the one making a claim that goes against established lore and against basic logic. You are the one that needs a statement from Blizzard.

I never said all. I said that you clearly learn some of your abilities without the trainer. This happened in Classic/Vanilla WoW as well.

And, again, that is a gameplay concession to smooth out gameplay. To say our characters "learn things spontaneously" is completely and totally illogical.

[Teriz]

It's not an opinion that game mechanics is not lore.

Your opinion is that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers. The game does not support your opinion.

Teriz, you're the one making a claim that goes against established lore and against basic logic. You are the one that needs a statement from Blizzard.

If it goes against established lore then you should have no problem providing a lore statement saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers.

And, again, that is a gameplay concession to smooth out gameplay. To say our characters "learn things spontaneously" is completely and totally illogical.

Where's your evidence? My evidence is the game not requiring you to return to a trainer to learn talent abilities, or your starting ability.

Your turn.

[Ielenia]

Your opinion is that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers. The game does not support your opinion.

The lore does, and we're talking about lore, the lore trumps gameplay and game mechanics, always.

If it goes against established lore then you should have no problem providing a lore statement saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers.

Teriz. Characters learning new things from mentors, books and other items is consistent with basic logic and narrative logic. Your claim defies both of those things, so it's you who need to provide a statement.

Where's your evidence? My evidence is the game not requiring you to return to a trainer to learn talent abilities, or your starting ability.

Your turn.

Gameplay and game mechanics are not lore. The game also doesn't require you to stop to take a breather even once when your blood elf runs from Silvermoon to Booty Bay. The game also allows the same blood elf to make that run while carrying over thirty tons of weight on their shoulders. The game also allows that same blood elf to float in the water while carrying those over 30 tons of weight. The game also allows you to summon a meteor to crash on your friend's head... and not do a single bit of damage to them. The game also does not allow you kill or even harm children, so do you think children are immortal and invulnerable in the lore?

[Teriz]

The lore does, and we're talking about lore, the lore trumps gameplay and game mechanics, always.

What lore? Show it to me. Show me where it says in the lore that you learn ALL of your abilities from a trainer.

[Syegfryed]

So you're going to dishonestly misrepresent my argument? Because you ignored a very important part of my argument: "based on what we have seen them do."

dishonesty is you trying to pass those hints or evidence and theories as factual proof that they are the same thing

We have evidence that they may be, and we have zero evidence that they may not.

no, you want to think there is no evidence they "may not", neverthless, there is nothing to set in stone they are, so, again, you are wrong here

You were the one who claimed synonyms "are not always the same thing", so it's very valid to ask for an example when they're not the same thing, i.e. one but not the other.

and i literally gave you an example, and you still don't want to accept, its not my problem now, go search on the internet

Funny how you love to accuse me of "headcanon" and "projection" and whatnot... but here you are doing the exact same thing. Worse, because your "headcanon" goes against factual evidence, because there are many tinkers who do not use mechs to fight.

but they fight, the tinkologists are not doing that, so?

Yes, it does, and I've already explained the reasoning and the evidence. You, so far, have only said that they're not the same thing because we're not explicitly told they're the same thing.

your only "evidence" of they being the same thing is they working on technology, this again, is not nearly enough proof to state as fact the bold claim you did, you are using the biased generalizing fallacy

Siegecrafter Blackfuse was never called a "tinker" in game. Does that mean he is not a tinker, then? Gazlowe is also never called a "tinker".

unlike your night elves overlords, blackfuse actually have evidence of being tinker other than name and "dealing with tecnology"

The wiki also says that "tinkers" and "tinkologists" are the same thing.

says they are synonyms* and as we saw, don't always mean the same thing, nice, go on

So if you're going to say "they don't exist in the wiki, therefore they are not canon", then you also must accept that "tinkers" and "tinkologists" are the same thing since the wiki says they are.

this was not rly a good tentative to flip the table, rly weak.

we must accept that tinkers and tinkologist sometimes means the same thing, we must accept that also, sometimes they do not mean the same thing, because synonyms.

If they were the same thing, the wiki would said that, and would also include those there, but its not the case, as we see, working with technology isn't the only trait of tinkers and everyone who do that isn't a tinker

[Ielenia]

What lore? Show it to me. Show me where it says in the lore that you learn ALL of your abilities from a trainer.

Teriz, please try to argue against basic logic and narrative logic.

There is not a single example in the lore of people in Azeroth learning things "spontaneously". We have schools and academies in the lore, things that would be wholly unnecessary if the people just "learned things spontaneously".

You're taking a game mechanic and treating it as if it is lore. And that is wrong. It doesn't work like that, and I've shown you examples of why that is the case.

[Teriz]

Teriz, please try to argue against basic logic and narrative logic.

There is not a single example in the lore of people in Azeroth learning things "spontaneously". We have schools and academies in the lore, things that would be wholly unnecessary if the people just "learned things spontaneously".

You're taking a game mechanic and treating it as if it is lore. And that is wrong. It doesn't work like that, and I've shown you examples of why that is the case.

So in other words you have no evidence beyond your head canon. Not surprising.

FYI, what we see in the game overrides your personal head canon.

[Ielenia]

no, you want to think there is no evidence they "may not"

Ok. So what is this evidence that points that they may not be the same?

neverthless, there is nothing to set in stone they are so again, you are wrong here

Again: there is evidence that 'tinker' and 'tinkologist' might be the same.

and i literally gave you an example, and you still don't want to accept,

You game me an example in which both can be used interchangeably. An 8 in a test is both good and excellent. So is a 10 in the test.

but they fight, the tinkologists are not doing that, so?

So what? That doesn't prove that they don't.

your only "evidence" of they being the same thing is they working on technology, this again, is not nearly enough proof to state as fact the bold claim you did, you are using the biased generalizing fallacy

Incorrect. I say they work with high-end technology. There is a difference.

unlike your night elves overlords, blackfuse actually have evidence of being tinker other than name and "dealing with tecnology"

And Gazlowe?

tsays they are snynomyms* and as we saw, don't lways mean the same thing, nice, go on

"We" saw nothing, since you haven't shown any example in which synonyms don't mean the same thing. Your "good/excellent" example fails because an 8 can be considered "excellent" as well.

this was not rly a good tentative to flip the table, rly weak.

we must accept that tinkers and tinkologist sometimes means the same thing, we must accept that also, sometimes they do not mean, because synonyms.

Why should we, since it hasn't been ever demonstrated that they "sometimes tinkologists are not tinker" or vice-versa?

If they were the same thing, the wiki would said that,

They did. "Tinkers (or tinkerers or tinkologists)" remember?

and would also include those there,

So here we have you assuming the list to be "complete" and the 'be-and-end-all' for the existing tinkers. If you're going to do that, then you should take the rest of the page as "truth" and accept that tinkers and tinkologists are the same thing because it's written on the page.

- - - Updated - - -

So in other words you have no evidence beyond your head canon. Not surprising.

Teriz, don't try to play cute and pretend you have any leg to stand on with that nonsensical claim of yours. Game mechanics are not lore. People don't spontaneously learn things out of nowhere.

FYI, what we see in the game overrides your personal head canon.

No. It doesn't. Because, again, game mechanics are not lore.

[Teriz]

Teriz, don't try to play cute and pretend you have any leg to stand on with that nonsensical claim of yours. Game mechanics are not lore. People don't spontaneously learn things out of nowhere.

Again, Game mechanics are more lore-based than your head canon. Let me know when you get that statement from Blizzard proving that your head canon is actually lore. Somehow I have a feeling that I’m going to be waiting for a very long time.

[Syegfryed]

Again: there is evidence that 'tinker' and 'tinkologist' might be the same.

might be is the key word here, they are not the same thing in the canon for a fact like you claim to be before, they might be, therefore, your point is moot, and you are just arguing for the sake or argue

you can't say for a fact that they ARE.

You game me an example in which both can be used interchangeably. An 8 in a test is both good and excellent. So is a 10 in the test.

in your head maybe, many people would not say a 8 is excelent, if the pattern of excelent is 10, we can even lower and put a 7 and would still be good but not excelent, again, you are just arguing for the sake or argue

And Gazlowe?

tbh here, Gazlowe might not be a proper tinker either, i didn't claim he was, he could be/probably is, but without evidence i at least will not say for certain.

At least his portrayed in Hots it is from a proper tinker, not canon at all but still is a thing if they want to take that in account

Why should we, since it hasn't been ever demonstrated that they "sometimes tinkologists are not tinker" or vice-versa?

so, your point is:

"nowhere is said they are tinkers, but since nowhere is said they are not tinkers, they are tinkers"

its a dumb logic, and you are dragging this discussion down because ~~reasons~~

[Ielenia]

might be is the key word here, they are not the same thing in the canon for a fact like you claim to be before, they might be, therefore, your point is moot, and you are just arguing for the sake or argue

you can't say for a fact that they ARE.

But you can say as a fact that they're not?

in your head maybe, many people would not say a 8 is excelent,

It's funny how you accuse me of "making things up", and having things "just in my head", when you go ahead and do that exact same in the same sentence.

so, your point is:

"nowhere is said they are tinkers, but since nowhere is said they are not tinkers, they are tinkers"

its a dumb logic, and you are dragging this discussion down because ~~reasons~~

No. That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. My position is: "Nowhere it is stated that they are tinkers. Nowhere it is stated that they are not tinkers. But there is evidence that points to the idea that they are tinkers."

- - - Updated - - -

Again, Game mechanics are more lore-based than your head canon.

No. No, you are wrong. Game mechanics rarely reflect lore:
• Gameplay allows our characters to remain conscious, standing, and fighting normally after being eviscerated, our internal organs removed. That goes against basic logic and narrative logic.
• Gameplay allows our characters to remain conscious, standing, and fighting normally after having pieces of our souls painfully carved off.
• Gameplay allows our characters to survive and take no damage whatsoever from a fall miles high... as long as we fall in the water.
• Gameplay requires undead characters to breathe underwater... when they don't need to breathe.
• Gameplay allows our character to run from Silvermoon to Booty Bay, without stopping even once, while carrying over 30 tons of weight on their shoulders, and reach their destination without being even slightly winded.
• Gameplay makes priests, mages and others be physically unable to wield a shield.
• Gameplay allows our characters to float in the water like they're wearing floaties, despite being clad in full plate armor.
• Gameplay allows our characters to spontaneously learn new things without the help of mentors and trainers.
• Gameplay allows our characters to come back from the brink of death, curing grievous wounds in seconds by eating one apple.
• Gameplay prevents all players of the opposite faction from attacking you, if you don't have PvP mode on.
• Gameplay prevents you from being dismounted when you're on a flight taxi.
• Gameplay does not require your character to sleep.
• Gameplay says that one apple takes the same space in your bags as a two-handed warhammer.
• Gameplay allows you to magically summon your mounts out of thin air.
• Gameplay says our characters are homeless.
• Gameplay allows our characters to speak with each other even inter-dimensionally and even through time by... whispering.
• Gameplay allows Horde players to replay the Warfront battles over and over and allow them to win, despite lore saying the Alliance won the warfronts.
• Gameplay allows us to be instant and magically teleported into a "dungeon" the moment an unseen force selects four other characters to accompany yours.
• Gameplay allows us to clear a "dungeon" over and over and over again, in the same day.
• Gameplay allows our characters to know what's behind their backs without them even turning around to look.
• Gameplay does not allow our characters to change classes, despite that happening more than once already in the lore.
• Etc, etc, etc.

[Syegfryed]

But you can say as a fact that they're not?

Jesus, you can't let it go right?

It's funny how you accuse me of "making things up", and having things "just in my head", when you go ahead and do that exact same in the same sentence.

>ask me for an example
>complain i use an example of my head

you are just being pointless

No. That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. My position is: "Nowhere it is stated that they are tinkers. Nowhere it is stated that they are not tinkers. But there is evidence that points to the idea that they are tinkers."

"therefore they are tinkers" and that is a headcanon, since there is also evidence that points to the idea of they just being engineers and not tinkers, so again, moot point.

If there is not facts proving for certain they are tinkers they are not for the sake of this conversation

[Powerogue]

I was really banking on tinkers being announced in BFA or SL and wanted to make a vulpera tinker named Ratchet.

BFA in particular would've made a lot of sense because of azerite. Missed opportunity, I say.