Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Elim Garak]

I think wow already has too many classes and we need to prune them:

Warlock needs to go, some of it should go to shadow priest, the rest to mages and demon hunters.
Warrior needs to go, we already have paladins and death knights, the former can get the charge, the latter - titan grip (frost dk), both can get the jump.
Rogue needs to go, we have feral druids who can pick up poison/venom (nature damage) attacks and demon hunters can take the stealth as the third spec.
Monk needs to go, it's a completely goofy class that doesn't fit anything and is completely unneeded.

Now we have 2 of each armor class. Priest/Mage, Druid/DH, Hunter/Shaman, Paladin/DK - 8 interesting and unique classes, 4 can tank, 4 can heal, all can DPS. Who are easier to balance. No new classes ever. Add more specs to existing ones and make them actually subclasses - for a meaningful choice, no switching back and forth.

[Teriz]

The thing is, you do not decide whether tinker and engineer are interchangeable or distinct concepts. Warrior and Paladin on the other hand both have specific, existing classes attached to them.

Uh, the WC3 and HotS Tinker all but confirm it. You can't build the claw pack in engineering. You can't build custom mechs in engineering. Engineering contains NONE of the abilities from WC3 or HotS. So no, they're not the same obviously.

And that's bad? Just like bombs falling down instead of up. Or sideways?

In WoW it's perfectly possible for bombs to fall sideways.

[Elim Garak]

Uh, the WC3 and HotS Tinker all but confirm it. You can't build the claw pack in engineering. Engineering contains NONE of the abilities from WC3 or HotS. So no, they're not the same obviously.

So why not ask Blizzard to add those to engineering so people can stop tinkering with classes?

[dimathevs]

I don't hate the concept of a Tinkerer class, but I do not care for it and to a certain degree do dislike the idea of turning into a class for some reasons.

The biggest is just simply that it would not feel new, at all. It is a concept that we have played and toyed around for since the very beggining of vanilla wow. Engineering has always been around, and looking at classic wow it's even detrimental for high level play. Gnomes and Goblins always had that theme as a core one, every quest that involves either of those races is always heavily tied with tinkering. It just wouldn't be a new concept, or in other words, it wouldn't add much to the game in the same vein as say Monk did, like it or not.

Some people might refute by saying that Death Knights or Demon Hunters always were and old concept too and have been since before WoW, it is true, but they weren't prevalent in the game before their arrival, they were old concepts that felt new to the game at that time. I just think this doesn't. It's an identity you have in spades in the game and can tip your toes in the game already. For those reasons it would not be exciting for me.

[Teriz]

So why not ask Blizzard to add those to engineering so people can stop tinkering with classes?

Because obviously engineering can't have abilities like that. It would cause a profession imbalance. Further, WC3 hero abilities always go to classes. You know what the only two WC3 heroes whose abilities are currently not in the class lineup? The Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist, and both are full of nothing but technology-based abilities.

[Ielenia]

And the gameplay is how we interact with the lore of the game, and the game is considered canon lore by Blizzard.

The lore presented in the game is considered canon, Teriz. The game mechanics are not.

Saying that "your logic" is true lore, and what we're experiencing in the game doesn't count is the hallmark of head canon.

This is a complete and blatantly dishonest representation of what I'm writing. I never wrote "my logic". I wrote basic logic and narrative logic. You should learn what those terms mean. And, once again: the game only allows us limited interaction within the game that is heavily curated. Here are many examples of gameplay that contradict basic logic and narrative logic, and I firmly believe no one would honestly and unironically say these are canon 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.

Like I said, please produce some official lore from Blizzard that counters what we're experiencing in the game, then you'll have an argument. Until then, you don't.

I'm sorry, Teriz. But it's you who need a statement, since, as proven many times already: gameplay defies basic and narrative logic.

No, that's actually a gameplay convention

No, Teriz. You don't get to call it a "gameplay convention" just because it goes against your narrative. Either you take all of the game mechanics as "gameplay conventions", or none of it. You can't cherry-pick.

None of those are hero characters.

All of those are canon lore characters.

Again, this is semantics, and it's getting tiring. A Tinker is a type of engineer, this is true. However EVERY engineer is not a Tinker.

Teriz, it's not semantics. And, again, by your logic, i.e., gameplay is canon, then an engineer is a superior form of tinker, since "tinkering" is just a sub-section of the engineering profession, making all engineers a tinker.

Is Gazlowe an adventurer? Yes or no.

There are tinkers who are vendors, and engineers who are adventurers. That alone shoots your claim to the ground.

But why would engineering bombs need longer cool downs?

It's explained right there in that exact same sentence you quoted.

Unless there's lore to contradict it, yes.

Are you admitting to being dishonest and arguing in bad faith? Do you really hold all that as canon!?

Again, the minute where you start putting your own spin on something in the game because it's not spelled out for you, you're doing head canon.

I'm sorry, Teriz. But you're wrong here. One shouldn't need the game mechanics spelling it out for you that characters don't "learn things spontaneously". One shouldn't need the game mechanics to spell it out that characters can't carry over thirty tons of weight on their shoulders and run from top to bottom of the Eastern Kingdoms continent without even being slightly winded despite running non-stop.

Everything you're inferring as "canon" defies basic and narrative logic.

You still never answered my question.

And I've explained why.

This is more of your head canon because you're assuming that the profession is the only type of engineering in WoW,

And yet the game hasn't shown us any other type of engineering... doesn't that mean you're using... *gasp!* Headcanon!?!

or that you need to know the engineering profession in order to be an engineering genius.

... Are you baiting right now? Are you for real, here? "You don't need to know engineering to be an engineering genius". What's next? You don't need to know physics to be an astrophysicist?

Again applying real world standards to a video game.

Fictional worlds are based of "real life standards". Once again, Teriz: Being a fictional world does not mean it's an "anything-and-everything-can-happen-spontaneously-for-no-reason".

Replace warrior with engineer and Paladin with Tinker. It's the same thing.

No, it's not. Because, again, 'engineer' is a specific word, but 'warrior', in the sentence you used, is a generic word.

[ymirsson]

Uh, the WC3 and HotS Tinker all but confirm it. You can't build the claw pack in engineering. You can't build custom mechs in engineering. Engineering contains NONE of the abilities from WC3 or HotS. So no, they're not the same obviously.

Newsflash, we're playing WoW, not anything else. Stop using your head canon, use your head. It might help.

In WoW it's perfectly possible for bombs to fall sideways.

Now this you have to proof.

[skorgg]

Until the current classes/specs are even remotely close to being all viable/balanced I certainly don't want anything else added to the fire.

[Elim Garak]

Because obviously engineering can't have abilities like that. It would cause a profession imbalance. Further, WC3 hero abilities always go to classes. You know what the only two WC3 heroes whose abilities are currently not in the class lineup? The Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist, and both are full of nothing but technology-based abilities.

Says who? Of course, it can. Profession imbalance is a non-issue - they can go to WC3 heroes and take appropriate abilities from them and add them to all professions. Sheesh. That would actually make professions interesting and meaningful in end game. That would make a better game overall.

[Teriz]

Newsflash, we're playing WoW, not anything else. Stop using your head canon, use your head. It might help.

Newsflash, WC3 is lore, and every class has abilities from WC3.

Now this you have to proof.

There's multiple areas in WoW where we have floating continents or goofy gravity.

[Katchii]

Good point. And the important part of that is that he does the schematics himself. He doesn't use someone else's schematics.

I don't know why this would be a pre-requisite though. Even Iron Man doesn't use tech and gadgets he hasn't tinkered with before, and stuff he just makes on the fly. The idea that a Tinker wouldn't either have the gadgets they use in battle pre-built and ready to go before they get to the field, or 100% memorized to expedite building in the field, is crazy. Why does a Tinker battle class HAVE to be using their own individual technological designs? Honestly, if it were to be made into an actual class every player will be using the same abilities which kind of breaks that fantasy.

With that said, why would it be a complete deal breaker for a Tinker class to have a mixed bag of some stuff they made and created themselves, mixed with stuff they learned and memorized from someone else?

The player is hardly the average Azerothian. I mean, the player is essentially a super hero.

Don't move the goal posts. You asked for someone who's not a Tinker that pilots mechs, the player is not a Tinker and uses tanks, mechs, and all other sorts of technology all the time.

Actually it's not ridiculous at all if you consider that a warrior learning engineering as a hobby wouldn't be able to build effective bombs or devices.

Why wouldn't a warrior be able to do this? Warriors can be Engineers right? The Engineering profession can build effective bombs and devices right?

Again, if you're trying to argue that the difference is in the cooldown and that somehow reflects on the effectiveness of the actual device, and that it's not simply balancing game mechanics, you're delusional.

However, Blizzard has stated in multiple sources that Tinkers can put together devices rapidly without planning. While it is fleshed out in the RPG books, it's important to note that that notion is backed up by multiple instances in the game, and it matches the typical "inventor" concept in popular fiction.

I never argued otherwise. I'm just saying that EVERYTHING they do isn't done on the fly. A class ability tool kit is built upon consistently used abilities, things the person has used over and over and over and over because they know how it works, knows THAT it works, and knows exactly when and how to use it. They can sprinkle in some random things here and there, sure, but the core kit will be tried and true skills. That would suggest a measure of planning, training and preparing prior to the encounter. A Tinker class wouldn't be inventing EVERYTHING they do on the fly in the middle battle.

You're forgetting that the class isn't based on the Engineering profession, it's based on the hero from WC3.

No, I'm not. I'm just paraphrasing what a Tinker class would look like; an Engineer with a more fully fleshed out tool kit with abilities that are balanced for actual game play usage like every other class tool kit. Those abilities would very likely be based on Tinker heroes.

[Teriz]

The lore presented in the game is considered canon, Teriz. The game mechanics are not.

Again, until you provide stated lore that says that professions and classes are the same, you stating so is nothing more than head canon.

No, Teriz. You don't get to call it a "gameplay convention" just because it goes against your narrative. Either you take all of the game mechanics as "gameplay conventions", or none of it. You can't cherry-pick.

I've already explained this.

All of those are canon lore characters.

None are prominent.

Teriz, it's not semantics. And, again, by your logic, i.e., gameplay is canon, then an engineer is a superior form of tinker, since "tinkering" is just a sub-section of the engineering profession, making all engineers a tinker.

Again, the game and the lore characters don't back up that assessment.

There are tinkers who are vendors, and engineers who are adventurers. That alone shoots your claim to the ground.

Semantics.

- - - Updated - - -

Says who? Of course, it can. Profession imbalance is a non-issue - they can go to WC3 heroes and take appropriate abilities from them and add them to all professions. Sheesh. That would actually make professions interesting and meaningful in end game. That would make a better game overall.

Profession imbalance is very much an issue. Let's say for example you give Engineering all of the Tinker abilities and give them class-like power levels. No one would spec into any other profession because those additional abilities would give classes advantages over classes that don't spec into engineering. This happened with engineering before btw, and that's why Blizzard reduced its power levels in WotLk.

[ymirsson]

Newsflash, WC3 is lore, and every class has abilities from WC3.



There's multiple areas in WoW where we have floating continents or goofy gravity.

Floating continents are not equivalent to bombs generally falling sideways. They generally fall down, as an analogy to the real world. Because many basic concepts are taken from there. Like things falling down, humans breathing air, that kind of stuff.

WC3 is part of the lore, yes. But tinker is not part of the WoW classes. There is a difference even you should be able to grasp. Other games' heroes do not confirm shit for WoW.

[Teriz]

I don't know why this would be a pre-requisite though.

If you're using someone else's schematics and instructions to build, you're not as technically advanced as the person who created the schematic.

Even Iron Man doesn't use tech and gadgets he hasn't tinkered with before, and stuff he just makes on the fly. The idea that a Tinker wouldn't either have the gadgets they use in battle pre-built and ready to go before they get to the field, or 100% memorized to expedite building in the field, is crazy. Why does a Tinker battle class HAVE to be using their own individual technological designs? Honestly, if it were to be made into an actual class every player will be using the same abilities which kind of breaks that fantasy.

That's a gameplay concession, and it's not an issue because it's been used in the game before. For example, the Goblin player is a trade prince who gets his wealth taken by Gallywix. The player characters are leaders of their respective classes in legion.

With that said, why would it be a complete deal breaker for a Tinker class to have a mixed bag of some stuff they made and created themselves, mixed with stuff they learned and memorized from someone else?

I never said it would be a deal breaker. I'm merely pointing out the difference between a Warrior learning to make bombs from an instruction manual, and a mechanical genius who can make custom bombs powerful enough to rival the strongest magic.

Don't move the goal posts. You asked for someone who's not a Tinker that pilots mechs, the player is not a Tinker and uses tanks, mechs, and all other sorts of technology all the time.

The person is question said that non Tinkers can pilot mechs. I would hardly consider the player character to be a good example of that argument. If we saw armies of regular alliance or horde soldiers flying around in mechs, I could understand the argument.

Why wouldn't a warrior be able to do this? Warriors can be Engineers right? The Engineering profession can build effective bombs and devices right?

Based on the profession, no. Which makes sense because the profession is designed to make toys, trinkets and items for sale.

Again, if you're trying to argue that the difference is in the cooldown and that somehow reflects on the effectiveness of the actual device, and that it's not simply balancing game mechanics, you're delusional.

The difference in cooldown, the difference in power level, the difference in availability, etc. If the goal is to say that any class can be an engineer like Mekkatorque or Blackfuse, the weaponry wouldn't be so purposely weak.

I never argued otherwise. I'm just saying that EVERYTHING they do isn't done on the fly. A class ability tool kit is built upon consistently used abilities, things the person has used over and over and over and over because they know how it works, knows THAT it works, and knows exactly when and how to use it. They can sprinkle in some random things here and there, sure, but the core kit will be tried and true skills. That would suggest a measure of planning, training and preparing prior to the encounter. A Tinker class wouldn't be inventing EVERYTHING they do on the fly in the middle battle.

Again, you're getting hung up on the lore versus gameplay. Gameplay being forced in a direction due to balancing doesn't alter the lore of the class. For example, Brewmasters have an unlimited source of bottles and kegs, yet our bags aren't full of bottles and kegs. Why? Because of gameplay. Simply because we say that a Tinker is an inventor doesn't mean that they have to constantly invent abilities.

No, I'm not. I'm just paraphrasing what a Tinker class would look like; an Engineer with a more fully fleshed out tool kit with abilities that are balanced for actual game play usage like every other class tool kit. Those abilities would very likely be based on Tinker heroes.

Except the profession doesn't have a tool kit. The profession just creates items, it has no rotational abilities. The actual class is based on the hero, not the profession.

[Triceron]

Newsflash, WC3 is lore, and every class has abilities from WC3.

That's true.

And Tinkers had Engineering Upgrade, while every class has the ability to take up the Engineering Profession. That's how Tinkers have been represented in WoW thus far. Every Tinker is an Engineer. That's the legacy of WC3 lore as represented in WoW.

This doesn't dismiss a Tinker class on its own, but if you're talking about lore from WC3 then we already have it in WoW. Engineering represents everything mechanical or technological related to player classes in WoW.

[Teriz]

Floating continents are not equivalent to bombs generally falling sideways.

Floating continents and land masses sort of defy logic.

WC3 is part of the lore, yes. But tinker is not part of the WoW classes.

Neither were Brewmasters, DKs, or Demon Hunters. Look where we are now.

- - - Updated - - -

That's true.

And Tinkers had Engineering Upgrade, while every class has the ability to take up the Engineering Profession. That's how Tinkers have been represented in WoW thus far. Every Tinker is an Engineer. That's the legacy of WC3 lore as represented in WoW.

And that's semantics. Again, the WC3 hero is nowhere to be found in the profession.

A more likely conclusion is that the WC3 Tinker is in the same spot the Brewmaster/Monk was in before MoP: Waiting in wings.

[ymirsson]

Floating continents and land masses sort of defy logic.



Neither were Brewmasters, DKs, or Demon Hunters. Look where we are now.

Yeah, casting fireballs also defies logic. But still, the concept of fire still is adhered to, it burns.

Right now, we do not have a WoW tinkerers. And judging by its fanbase, we can finally answer the OP question. Because the advocates for tinkerers seems so obnoxious.

[Varodoc]

As a Ranged main, I am tired of new Melee classes. Tinkers would be a Melee class, since all "Tinkers" shown in the lore so far were melee. So that's a big No for me.

[ymirsson]

And that's semantics.

Stop crying semantics every time someone says something you don't agree with.

[Weeps]

I’m gonna keep it simple.

I think tinker class is a very stupid idea.

That’s it. I don’t like it. Go play engineer. “But iTs noT enG” let me stop you right there. Yes it is. It is just an expanded engineer and I think it is stupid and flies against the face of “fantasy.”

Don’t bother responding to this because tinker class is for the bums.