Page 23 of 52 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
24
25
33
... LastLast
  1. #441
    I don't hate tinkers, it's just that their design space is already occupied by professions. It's the same reason why I wouldn't expect to ever see an alchemist or enchanter class. Blizzard has assigned some class concepts to the profession space, that's just how it is. Expecting a profession to become a class is a bit of a pipe dream imo.

  2. #442
    Over 9000! Kithelle's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    9,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    1.) Engineering profession already exists for all classes.
    2.) They don't explicitly exist in the lore, past or present.
    3.) The gameplay would be an instant meme.
    4.) Having Tinkerers doesn't really add anything to the mythos of the game into the future. Deathknights got a whisper of relevance in Legion and are only just now relevant again in Shadowlands after 10 years. (Monks have been irrelevant since MoP, DHs since Legion...)
    5.) Presumably limited to Goblins and Gnomes; Alliance advantage.

    The only pro that I see would be the possibility of adding two or more ranged specs to the game, which is something the game desperately needs. RANGED DPS PLAYERS HAVE NOT HAD A NEW CLASS SINCE VANILLA BLIZZARD.

    My vote instead of Tinkerer?
    1.) Spell Breaker (Belf) / Battle Mage (Voids) - Mails armor, ranged via thrown glaives, animated weapons, wands and staves depending on spec. Possible tank spec with shields, possible healing spec with buffs, spell steals and spell building.
    2.) Necromancer - Post Shadowlands momentum, scourge related. Shadowlands could make the class viable if the expansion absolves the pariah state they currently are in along with being very few in number. (But like DHs in Legion, had discovered numbers through Legion, there's many necromancers in the Shadowlands.)
    3.) Chronomancer - just give me a time mage please. Could have a full bronze dragonflight - becomes mortal, choose your race theme. If you want the steam punk vibe, go heavy with the clock theme.
    1.) Engineering is a profession that crafts things not a class...I can't honestly think you play WoW if you don't know the difference
    2.) They've been in the games since the RTS
    3.) If you say so
    4.) You can say that for most of the classes in game
    5.) How does it give Alliance a advantage?

    1.) So you basically just want to make them into something they're totally not...and you complain about Tinker being bad?
    2.) Could be covered by a 4th spec of DK
    3.) Once again could be covered in a 4th spec unless you think they're gonna let you play as a Dragon in WoW

  3. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes are heavily invested in technology to the point where they're nearly out of place. Other races are not.
    Last I checked, Gnomes and Goblins didn't have Spaceships to travel the Universe with....

    That was the Draenei, and I mean, their capital is literally half a chunk of crashed spaceship...

    so shouldn't they be Tinkerers too?

    I mean, sure, goblins and gnomes have made some cool stuff, but until they can create inter-galaxy teleportation Space ships, they ain't got what it takes.
    Last edited by PrivateSmiley; 2020-07-27 at 04:15 AM.

  4. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by rhrrngt View Post
    I really don't understand a community that hates variety so much. A technical based class with steampunk vibes is usually a staple in many fantasy games and its a clear missing component in WoW despite the myriad of technologies the world offers. Yet anytime someone suggests a desire for the class or even comes up with creative ways to implement it half the community it seems nearly has a stroke with the amount of rage they bring.
    I mean in reality it doesn't have to be called tinkerer, but i do think the game would benefit from a class that embodies a mechanical steam punk type vibe.
    The idea would lose its luster pretty quickly. It'd just become a meta-game of making sure you keep your robots functioning. constantly repairing your dps/healbots doesn't sound like engaging content

  5. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post

    Because Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes are heavily invested in technology to the point where they're nearly out of place. Other races are not.
    So you no longer think it should be:

    Races:
    Alliance: Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Draenei
    Horde: Goblins, Blood Elves, Orcs Undead,

    Possibly Pandaren

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinpachi View Post
    The idea would lose its luster pretty quickly. It'd just become a meta-game of making sure you keep your robots functioning. constantly repairing your dps/healbots doesn't sound like engaging content
    This is the issue with turrets and pets - if they are entirely passive, they are boring and take away from skilled play. If they require a lot of micro managing, they are also boring - Blizzard have spoken about this at length with both wow, and Overwatch in particular where they completely redesigned Torbjörn for this exact reason.

  6. #446
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, it's the other way around, Teriz.
    Then where's the lore? And no sorry, but your "logic" doesn't count as lore, it counts as head canon.


    There are a bajillion things in the gameplay that makes absolutely no logical sense to exist in the lore. Basic logic and basic narrative logic show that gameplay is not lore.
    This is an example of head canon.


    We do? I'll do a Teriz: show me where in the lore it says that the paladins, mages and monks in the Battle for Dazar'alor raid are weaker than our player characters.
    Again, the player Paladin for example replaces Tirion as the Highlord of all Paladins. The player is even called "The Light's Greatest champion". You think a random Z Troll Paladin is more powerful? Okay.

    Which means he was not a monk before, therefore we had absolutely no lore monk hero before MoP to base a monk class from, and your original argument was:

    By your logic that you just wrote, we can just "retroactively" make an existing character into a bard, or necromancer.
    That's right. And unlike Stormstout, there's no Warcraft heroes floating around that you can make into a Necromancer or Bard hero.

    No. We're not reaching the same conclusion. Your conclusion is that classes come from WC3 abilities, and my conclusion is that classes come from concepts that can come from any media, inside or outside the Warcraft franchise.
    The point is that the abilities shown by Tinkers aren't designed to be sold in shops like the profession abilities are. Those abilities are designed to be used to perform the duties of a class. That's the point. But by all means, continue playing semantic games.


    My point is that those examples I mentioned shoot down your "tinkers are adventurers, engineers are vendors" argument.
    Except profession engineers are vendors. That's the entire purpose. That's why you roll into engineering. You don't roll a Mage to sell items in a shop. Nor would you roll a technology class to sell items in a shop. Thats not the purpose of a class.

    Come to think of it, if you analyze Gazlowe in the Island Expedition... he appears to not be a tinker at all. Because, other than "X-plodium Charge", which is no different than the bombs the engineer profession make (and could be argued he could have bought those bombs), the only other ability Gazlowe has, outside his mech, is "throw scrap". Doesn't look very "tinkerish" to become basically useless without their mech, and looks like a lot like someone who lost their only weapon.
    I wasn't aware that engineering made bombs with a 6 second cool down. Care to link to it?

    BTW, he also has Deth Lazor, which was an ability in HotS.

    No, lore is not gameplay, and game play is not lore.
    Again, gameplay is the stand in for lore until lore is established or contradicts it.

    And no, lore isn't your personal "logic" being applied to gameplay.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    I don't hate tinkers, it's just that their design space is already occupied by professions. It's the same reason why I wouldn't expect to ever see an alchemist or enchanter class. Blizzard has assigned some class concepts to the profession space, that's just how it is. Expecting a profession to become a class is a bit of a pipe dream imo.
    Except professions and classes don't share design space, and the Tinker is based on the WC3 hero, just like the last three expansion classes were.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PrivateSmiley View Post
    Last I checked, Gnomes and Goblins didn't have Spaceships to travel the Universe with....

    That was the Draenei, and I mean, their capital is literally half a chunk of crashed spaceship...

    so shouldn't they be Tinkerers too?

    I mean, sure, goblins and gnomes have made some cool stuff, but until they can create inter-galaxy teleportation Space ships, they ain't got what it takes.
    And their technology is pretty much crystals, and is very magical in nature. Your typical Draenei is either a magic user or a Paladin. The Lightforged Warframe was actually a departure from their standard tech, and it simply isn't shown throughout the race.

    Gnome and Goblins are almost always in mech suits and using gizmos. Both their racial leaders pilot mechs, and Mechagnomes are cyborgs.

  7. #447
    Tbh; I would prefer they pump up professions to max and make enginering the "utility"-prof again.
    Make more slots aviable for tinkering om gear, not just belts.

    Dont make me choose between nitro-boost and knockback for example
    Make it so it shares Cd with trinkets/potions

  8. #448
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,809
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    So you no longer think it should be:

    Races:
    Alliance: Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Draenei
    Horde: Goblins, Blood Elves, Orcs Undead,

    Possibly Pandaren
    No. Due to the nature of the class, I simply don't see Blizzard being able to give each race their own technology. Limiting it to Mechagnomes, Gnomes and Goblins allows all three races to get their own unique take on technology.

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except by all accounts, the Tinker wouldn't use pets. At most they would use summons (i.e. Turrets). If they're mech-based, which is indicative from the Tinker heroes and what we've seen in WoW, then their source of damage will be them, not pets.
    It is the same concept, they are still in the pet class. So now actually address the comment, if you can. A Warlock is a pet class even though their pets are demons, Death Knights are a pet class even though they are undead summons. Tinkers would be a pet class but all of their damage would come from pets.

  10. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Kithelle View Post
    2.) They've been in the games since the RTS
    Last seen in WC3 Frozen Throne expansion tavern. They don't exist in WoW. For all we know there was one and he died in combat.
    Using this as an argument, we may as well freely drop in Dark Rangers, Goblin Alchemists, Fire Lords, Sea Witches and Pit Lords to the playable class roster as well.


    Hell, Dark Rangers have a better chance at being a class than Tinkerers. Blizz could add them in tandem with a Warden counterpart for Alliance (missed BfA opportunity.)

  11. #451
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaelexi View Post
    It is the same concept, they are still in the pet class. So now actually address the comment, if you can. A Warlock is a pet class even though their pets are demons, Death Knights are a pet class even though they are undead summons. Tinkers would be a pet class but all of their damage would come from pets.
    So do you think that Totems or Monk statues are pets?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    Last seen in WC3 Frozen Throne expansion tavern. They don't exist in WoW.
    The Tinker's Union in Undermine suggests otherwise.

  12. #452
    I don't hate tinkers. I am pretty 'meh' about them. I don't really see many people 'hating' them either. I think most people come from the same place as myself: we play WoW for high fantasy, D&D/LotR style. I am already pretty 'meh' about guns/engineering/technology in the game. It kind of kills the fantasy as standard guns are miles beyond the power of bows and crossbows. Realistically, no one but fighters with guns should exist as even wizards would likely die in a single well-placed shot.

    I'd be fine with them adding a Tinker, but it wouldn't be for me and I wouldn't play it. I don't really care for DH either (power issues and lack of identity). If WoW was designed to cater to me, I think the game is missing the archer and summoner archetypes. Hunters are really not archers, they're a pet class with poisons, bombs, traps, tracking etc, that uses a bow as a second thought. They're really a beast master and survivalist put together (ergo their specs...). Marksman is OK but it has only really appealed to that archetype in the last few years and it is lacking since it's an optional talent choice and still doesn't really embrace that fantasy. We have nothing that focuses on summoning swarms of minions either.

    I'd add an archer/ranger and a necromancer. Other summoning based classes exist of course, but I feel 'death caster' isn't really filled anywhere. Warlock is more about shadow/fel/fire. So a necromancer could fill both niches. An archer/ranger class should purely work with ranged weapons and be all about empowering them, marksmanship, skilled shots, etc. Could have a spec that focuses on high skilled shots, a spec that dual-wields ranged weapons and fires them in a frenzy, and then the first ranged tank.

    But alas, WoW is not made only for me, so I doubt we'll see these.
    “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.”
    – C.S. Lewis

  13. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by Bwonsamdi the Dead View Post
    True. This game could use another ranged dps caster
    That really goes in the realm of "head canon" you envision a Tinker to be.

    The reason why Tinkers are such a good idea is that they have a whole untapped theme in classes that would make them unique and they can fill any role you want them to. The design is up to blizzard, but, for example, in the island expedition Gazlowe team (and i guess on the gnome equivalent) the DPS character is ranged.
    The thing is tinker fit all roles. Could tank with a mech, could heal with bots, can dps in melee with the backpack that Gazlowe has in heroes, can range dps with a gun and they can deploy turrets.

    With Tinker, blizzard can literally do whatever roles they want. There is that much material to tap from. So, it is totally possible for tinker to have a ranged dps spec. Of course, it's not a caster per se, but we do have more of those than say ranged "physical dps".
    Last edited by Swnem; 2020-07-27 at 05:00 AM.

  14. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So do you think that Totems or Monk statues are pets?

    - - - Updated - - -



    The Tinker's Union in Undermine suggests otherwise.
    Oh, so you mean engineers. Got it.

    Edit: *Goblin Engineers
    Last edited by Elestia; 2020-07-27 at 05:03 AM.

  15. #455
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    Oh, so you mean engineers. Got it.

    Edit: *Goblin Engineers
    Well no, Tinkers. All Tinkers are engineers, but all engineers are not Tinkers.

    Just like all Paladins are warriors, but all warriors are not Paladins.

  16. #456
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Then where's the lore? And no sorry, but your "logic" doesn't count as lore, it counts as head canon.
    And gameplay and game mechanics are not lore. Simple as that. Gameplay and game mechanics are simply a window which allows us limited interaction with the fictional universe of Warcraft.

    This is an example of head canon.
    No, Teriz. This is an example of basic logic. What you are doing is headcanon.

    Again, the player Paladin for example replaces Tirion as the Highlord of all Paladins. The player is even called "The Light's Greatest champion". You think a random Z Troll Paladin is more powerful? Okay.
    It's what the game (You know, that thing you hold in such high regard regarding lore...) shows us.

    That's right. And unlike Stormstout, there's no Warcraft heroes floating around that you can make into a Necromancer or Bard hero.
    Bard: Russell Brower. Russell the Bard. Lorewalker Cho. Brann Bronzebeard.
    Necromancer: Thule Ravenclaw. Instructor Malicia. Maleki the Palid. And hell: Illidan was brought back from the dead, so the precedent exists to bring back dead necromancers.

    The point is that the abilities shown by Tinkers aren't designed to be sold in shops like the profession abilities are.
    This is an arbitrary distinction. A rocket that a tinker creates is no different than a rocket an engineer creates. A mech an engineer creates is not different than a mech a tinker creates. A tinker can decide to sell the rocket they created instead of using it, just like an engineer can decide to use the rocket they created instead of selling it.

    Except profession engineers are vendors.
    Wrong. Objectively wrong. Because not only I liked to you examples of adventurer engineers, but you also failed to show any lore evidence that "tinker" is an adventurer and "engineer" is the vendor, despite THE GAME (You know, that thing you hold in such high regard regarding lore...) showing otherwise.

    I wasn't aware that engineering made bombs with a 6 second cool down. Care to link to it?
    Engineers make bombs that deal fire damage and stun. "Cooldowns" are simply gameplay mechanics for balance.

    BTW, he also has Deth Lazor, which was an ability in HotS.
    Wrong. His mech has "death lazor". Not Gazlowe. Because he never uses that ability outside the mech.

    Again, gameplay is the stand in for lore until lore is established or contradicts it.
    So you're saying that all this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    • 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 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 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.
    Is canon lore?

    And no, lore isn't your personal "logic" being applied to gameplay.
    Teriz, it's not "my personal logic". It's basic logic. The same logic that we use in our day-to-day lives. The same logic that is used to bring consistency to fictional worlds. There is no such thing as "real life logic". There is just logic. Simple as that.

    You love to tout that "logic works differently" in the Warcraft universe... yet you haven't shown a single example of that in the lore.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  17. #457
    Over 9000! Kithelle's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    9,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    Last seen in WC3 Frozen Throne expansion tavern. They don't exist in WoW. For all we know there was one and he died in combat.
    Using this as an argument, we may as well freely drop in Dark Rangers, Goblin Alchemists, Fire Lords, Sea Witches and Pit Lords to the playable class roster as well.


    Hell, Dark Rangers have a better chance at being a class than Tinkerers. Blizz could add them in tandem with a Warden counterpart for Alliance (missed BfA opportunity.)
    High Tinker Mekkatorque says hello, same with Master Tinker Trini, the Mechagon Tinkerers, and many more.

  18. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No. Due to the nature of the class, I simply don't see Blizzard being able to give each race their own technology. Limiting it to Mechagnomes, Gnomes and Goblins allows all three races to get their own unique take on technology.
    I only ask because it was you that suggested those races in a previous thread.

  19. #459
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well no, Tinkers. All Tinkers are engineers, but all engineers are not Tinkers.

    Just like all Paladins are warriors, but all warriors are not Paladins.
    But apparently all Tinkerers are goblin engineers, correct?

    Every class in the game can be an engineer. Only goblin engineers may affiliate with the Tinkerer's Union which is a faction that operates much like the Venture Company.

    The Tinkerer's Union is a commercial union for Goblin engineers, NOT Tinkerer hero units as seen in WC3 FT.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kithelle View Post
    High Tinker Mekkatorque says hello, same with Master Tinker Trini, the Mechagon Tinkerers, and many more.
    Oh, gnome engineers. Got it.

    Mekkatorque is literally the sole example / what might actually get close to a WC3 tinkerer. Maybe Gallywix.
    Last edited by Elestia; 2020-07-27 at 05:37 AM.

  20. #460
    engineers are professions because they are professionals where a tinker is just an amateur doing some stuff here & there with that he/she has available.
    a new adventurer could never be a "Tinker" because he'd never have the means to build his needed tech.
    you CAN'T have a tinker with perma mech, it'd need to make a whole new equipment class : mech parts. SWTOR has something like that at it's launch for droids partners, which was never reused for any extensions past the 1st one, you couldn't gear your robot partners past a basic level and you had to craft it.
    and if you need a "WC3 tinker" class to much, then you need a "WC3 goblin alchemist" just as much no ?
    the WC3 tinker hero was made into a profession, just as the alchemist one, and no matter how much you post anywere, you'll never change this.
    there are lots of stuff I'd want myself in the game, and it's not coming anytime soon™, make peace with that quickly because you'll only tire yourself and disgust anyone still willing to read any post you infest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •