If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Teriz]

Tinker to work in the manner of a tinker especially : to repair, adjust, or work with something in an unskilled or experimental manner : fiddle always tinkering with his car. transitive verb. : to repair, adjust, or experiment with.

Meaning engineer > tinker. Thus tinkers are the morrons who dabble in engineering and hold the screwdriver by the bit end and use it as a hammer. They are the "keep this thing and dont touch anything" people.

Yeah, that's not the Warcraft Tinker.

This is the Warcraft Tinker;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml

And these were the previous expansion classes;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...ewmaster.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/night...onhunter.shtml
http://classic.battle.net/war3/undea...thknight.shtml

So I'd say its chances are pretty good.

- - - Updated - - -

You have an Iron Man fetish, which you can fulfill by playing Marvel's Avengers.

"again we can look to WoW; There are Hunters/Shamans/Warriors/Rogues, and there are Sylvanas/Tyrande/Vashj/Vol'jin/Samuro/Maiev. They might be those classes but, every class isn't them. In other words, even if it were lore-based that a Undead/Night elf/Naga/Troll/Orc could learn to be a Hunter/Shaman/Warrior/Rogue, that has nothing to do with the Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Sea Witch/Shadow Hunter/Blademaster/Warden." - i just loving using your own arguments against you

You do realize that the difference is that the abilities from Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Sea Witch/Blademaster/etc. are in Hunters/Shaman/Warrior/Rogue right?

Actually, Engineering does build Tinker's devices:
Turrets? ✓
lasers? ✓
Bombs? ✓
Mechs? ✓
Gravitational devices? ✓

They are mechanically different because one is a Profession and the other a class concept. They do serve the same purpose: Engineering and Alchemy were the only professions to be used in combat.

So is Wildfire Bomb a Hunter bomb, or an engineering bomb?
Is Crimson Vial a Rogue vial, or an alchemy vial?
Is Nimble Brew a Monk brew, or a cooking brew?
Is Mana Gems a Mage gem, or a jewelcrafter gem?

Calling an Engineer a seller and a Tinker a combat unit is just your take on it. Lore doesn't support it. A mage crafting a Goblin Rocket Launcher trinket is the same as your dream of a mech launching a volley of bombs from the sky. You are just unsatisfied with the animation and damage.

Lore doesn't support it eh?

A profession is a trade-oriented set of skills that player characters may learn and incrementally advance in order to gather, make, or enhance items that can be used in World of Warcraft gameplay. In essence, professions are 'jobs' characters may have.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Profession

Professions really have nothing to do with classes.

Technology is as much a physical power as a Hunter. They both do physical damage from afar. Would you call a Hunter physically strong? The mech wouldn't have a need for explosives and other devices if it was, purely, physically strong. I've, already, showed you that Goblin bruisers are stronger than their size would indicate, so your whole imaginative argument for them being weak is irrelevant.

Non-magical Explosives are also physical.

Also you didn't show me anything, just some obscure quote. Feel free to name a Goblin bruiser in lore.

Why? because the Forsaken collaborated, particularly, with the Goblins in Darkshore, that's why. They have more of a connection to them than your Vulpera.

"Why do you think we have prominent Goblin and Vulpera heroes like Gazlowe and Nisha, an Engineer and a Rogue, respectively." - You're just making it too easy

"Pandaren are a completely different case. Pandaren were oppressed by another race for many years, and they were oppressed because they lacked the physical strength to properly defend themselves. It would make quite a bit of sense that Vulpera would fully embrace Pandaren techniques in order to defend themselves for the future." - You're just serving these on a gold plate

"Whose concepts has been divided up among multiple classes/profession....." (Death Knight, Demon Hunter, Tinker) - a walk in the park

It's truly incredible how you type so much, yet still fail to make your point.

Because you didn't learn from the source, like they did. Pandaren lived the Mists and August Celestials. Outsiders don't, even, have a clue what they are until they visit Pandaria.

They didn't learn from the source either. The Pandaren Monk trainers and Stormstout himself come from the Wandering Isle, not Pandaria.

1. yes, we did. With the Pandaren Monk pet. Your argument just confirms that a class isn't fully represented until it is added - which, helps my case.
2. But not frost powers, as can be seen by the lack of frost magic in Death Knights until WotlK - which, again helps my case, as it shows that classes are misrepresented until being fully added into the game.
3. Illidan gained Metamorphosis from the Skull of Gul'dan. If you can pass these kind of abilities to your students, then you can pass banshee powers, as well. claiming Sylvanas hasn't raised or trained anyone in the ways of banshee powers, is again going back to Death Knights not using frost magic until WotLK. You have to wait until the class is added to see full abilities on display.

1. Which is why I said "full-blown Pandaren".
2. Yes even with frost powers. How do you think Kelthuzad became a Lich?
3. And at some point he taught his followers how to do it. We had multiple Illidari who could perform metamorphosis in TBC. To this day in WoW, Sylvanas has yet to produce a Dark Ranger with Banshee abilities. And frankly, she's probably done being a Dark Ranger.

Thiernax and Qadarin, from planet Fyzandi.
Zandalari Lun'alai.
Worgen were created by the powers of Elune.
Tauren call her Mu'sha.
I can see Nightborne astromancers and Shadowmoon mag'har orcs worshipping her, as well, due to their connections to the stars.

My point still stands; Only Night Elves worship Elune. If the basis of this class is Elune worship, you're going to have to expand the lore or (more likely) acknowledge that the Night Warrior class is a non-starter.

[Ielenia]

How would it be coincidental when a designer and a programer designed the gameplay in that fashion following the layout of a writer? It's more like discussing the actors, wardrobe and props. The lore is just the script.

No, it's not. Because "actors, wardrobe and props" would be NPCs and textures, not gameplay. Gameplay is the limited window through which you interact with the story. Gameplay is not the story. Gameplay is not lore.

By all means, show us the canon lore of Azeroth where the eating, sleeping, and pooping habits of Azerothians are described in great detail.

Westfall. The entire quest chain of that zone talks about how people are suffering because of famine and poverty. We also have several mobs in the game that are emaciated.

Except it could never be a coincidence because someone actually sat down and wrote it. And they wrote it because they wanted to justify/explain Metamorphosis in the Warlock class.

It can be a coincidence because it could have been Blizzard's plan to create a warlock-centric group, and just decided to add the whole 'metamorphosis' thing because it was already there. To say it was not a coincidence is to say that the Council of Harvest was created BECAUSE the warlock's meta ability.

Uh, the lore says they learned it. If there's no lore stating the lost it, that means they still have it. The impetus would be on you to find the lore where it implicitly states that Warlocks lost the ability to use metamorphosis. It being "heavily implied" isn't enough.

It is enough.

There's plenty of RPGs out there with good stories. They're not nearly as popular as WoW because their gameplay wasn't up to par. So yeah, I would definitely say the gameplay is the most important part. If I want a good story, I'll read a book.

Okay. You just adopted the burden of proof to prove that the reason WoW is successful is because of its gameplay.

Well considering they don't live on Earth

Irrelevant. Azeroth is still a very Earth-like planet in the sense that it has trees that look and behave JUST like on Earth, animals that look and behave a lot like animals on Earth. Water, fire, earth, stones, humans, etc. In short: you are making an absurd claim with zero evidence, that goes against what is established by the lore of the game.

You're showing me something about a profession. I thought we were talking about classes here. Professions have nothing to do with classes.

It's an oft-repeated claim of yours that "tinkers are inventors" and using it as a difference from engineers because "engineers follow schematics". I've shown that this arbitrary distinction of yours is false.

You mean it doesn't exist in your head canon. According to Blizzard everything in their game is canon lore. That would include the Tinker's abilities ported over from HotS.

Throwing a bomb by left-clicking in an icon on your spellbook is no different in the lore from throwing a bomb by right-clicking on an icon in your bags.

[Teriz]

No, it's not. Because "actors, wardrobe and props" would be NPCs and textures, not gameplay. Gameplay is the limited window through which you interact with the story. Gameplay is not the story. Gameplay is not lore.

In television the actors, wardrobes, props, etc. is how you interact with the story, because it's a visual medium. The actors and the setting is what is telling you the story.

Lore in of itself is just the story, or in the case of television, the script.

Back to the question; How is it coincidental when someone purposely sat down and designed the entire thing to follow the story set by a writer?

Westfall. The entire quest chain of that zone talks about how people are suffering because of famine and poverty. We also have several mobs in the game that are emaciated.

1. That's just westfall.
2. Humans aren't the only race on Azeroth, and the humans in westfall might be different than other humans.
3. We have no idea how long the famine has been taking place or how long people haven't eaten.
4. The same thing applies to the animals you posted.

It can be a coincidence because it could have been Blizzard's plan to create a warlock-centric group, and just decided to add the whole 'metamorphosis' thing because it was already there. To say it was not a coincidence is to say that the Council of Harvest was created BECAUSE the warlock's meta ability.

The only way for it to be a coincidence would be for the writers to not know that Warlocks had metamorphosis, which is absurd. Further, Karenthred Ebonlocke learning metamorphosis from Illidan was the most fleshed out portion of the entire storyline.

In the end, it's an example of lore coming AFTER gameplay, something you said doesn't happen.

It is enough.

For your head canon, but not for the lore.

Okay. You just adopted the burden of proof to prove that the reason WoW is successful is because of its gameplay.

You seriously think that WoW is successful because of its story? Blizzard as a whole has a reputation of producing games that are fun to play with polished gameplay. That's pretty much the backbone of the entire company. Their only real stumble so far was HotS.

Most people really don't give to ships about lore. They only care about the lore to see what might be coming next and how it might effect their characters. Raiding, PvP, and end game content is what the majority care about, and that's gameplay stuff. Look at how many threads are in the Lore forum here on MMOC compared to other forums for example.

Irrelevant. Azeroth is still a very Earth-like planet in the sense that it has trees that look and behave JUST like on Earth.....

The trees can uproot themselves and attack people dude.

It's an oft-repeated claim of yours that "tinkers are inventors" and using it as a difference from engineers because "engineers follow schematics". I've shown that this arbitrary distinction of yours is false.

Then where are the Tinker's inventions in engineering profession? We can start with the claw pack.

Throwing a bomb by left-clicking in an icon on your spellbook is no different in the lore from throwing a bomb by right-clicking on an icon in your bags.

But Tinkers don't throw bombs, they launch them from a machine they control.

[Ielenia]

In television the actors, wardrobes, props, etc. is how you interact with the story, because it's a visual medium. The actors and the setting is what is telling you the story.

Read the meaning of "interaction": it requires an exchange of information or instructions. There is no exchange of information between us and the actors/wardrobes/props. But there IS an exchange between us and the TVs.

Lore in of itself is just the story, or in the case of television, the script.

Lore is also the textures, the props, the visual medium.

Back to the question; How is it coincidental when someone purposely sat down and designed the entire thing to follow the story set by a writer?

Your question is worded wrong. Because we're not talking about someone designing a story following one set by another writer. We're talking about gameplay and lore, and those are separate from one-another.

1. That's just westfall.

Are you going to claim that Westfall is somehow a different dimension altogether from the rest of the Warcraft franchise, in which being the only place in the whole wide universe of Warcraft in which people depend on food and water to survive? If you're not, then your rebuttal is meaningless. And wrong, too, because I've given examples of famine affecting other areas.

2. Humans aren't the only race on Azeroth, and the humans in westfall might be different than other humans.

... You did make that claim. Fuck me, are you being dumb on purpose? This is beyond asinine considering you constantly dismiss my arguments as "headcanon", and yet here you are engaging in headcanon that does not make a lick of sense.

3. We have no idea how long the famine has been taking place or how long people haven't eaten.

Irrelevant.

4. The same thing applies to the animals you posted.

Also irrelevant. Your claim was that food and drinks are not something that is required for survival. The existence of famine irrevocably debunks your claim.

The only way for it to be a coincidence would be for the writers to not know that Warlocks had metamorphosis, which is absurd. Further, Karenthred Ebonlocke learning metamorphosis from Illidan was the most fleshed out portion of the entire storyline.

In the end, it's an example of lore coming AFTER gameplay, something you said doesn't happen.

That was never my claim. Stop misrepresenting me. I said that gameplay is not lore. That is my claim.

For your head canon, but not for the lore.

It is the lore.

You seriously think that WoW is successful because of its story?

I never made that claim. You, on the other hand, made a claim. Meaning you adopted the burden of proof for yourself. I am waiting for that evidence.

The trees can uproot themselves and attack people dude.

It's still an universe that follows the same rules as our own, except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't, the lore makes it clear how different that universe behaves differently than our own. And your claim? It has never even be shown to be possible, much less probable.

Then where are the Tinker's inventions in engineering profession?

Don't move the goalposts. Your claim is that "tinkers are inventors" and that engineers are not. Both are inventors in the same field of technology.

We can start with the claw pack.

You mean the thing that has not been shown to exist in the lore?

But Tinkers don't throw bombs, they launch them from a machine they control.

Tomato, tomato. Engineers also throw bombs through machines they control.

[Teriz]

Read the meaning of "interaction": it requires an exchange of information or instructions. There is no exchange of information between us and the actors/wardrobes/props. But there IS an exchange between us and the TVs.

You do know that when you watch a television program or a play in a theatre there is an exchange of information right?

Lore is also the textures, the props, the visual medium.

No it isn't. Lore is ONLY the story. There is nothing visual about lore.

Your question is worded wrong. Because we're not talking about someone designing a story following one set by another writer. We're talking about gameplay and lore, and those are separate from one-another.

So do you think that gameplay and lore spontaneously appear out of nowhere, or do you think either

A: Some writer decides to make a game and writes up a story and then hires an artist or designer to create the concepts, assets, etc.?

or

B: A designer comes up with concepts and ideas, creates the characters and then hires a writer to flesh out those characters and concepts (i.e. creates lore)?

Either way, its not coincidental, it's planned and purposeful.

Are you going to claim that Westfall is somehow a different dimension altogether from the rest of the Warcraft franchise, in which being the only place in the whole wide universe of Warcraft in which people depend on food and water to survive? If you're not, then your rebuttal is meaningless. And wrong, too, because I've given examples of famine affecting other areas.

Nope, just claiming that the humans living in westfall are possibly different than humans living elsewhere in the Eastern Kingdoms.

... You did make that claim. Fuck me, are you being dumb on purpose? This is beyond asinine considering you constantly dismiss my arguments as "headcanon", and yet here you are engaging in headcanon that does not make a lick of sense.

I'm engaging in head canon because you're engaging in head canon.

Also it doesn't make a lick of sense to you that humans aren't the only sentient race on Azeroth? I asked you to give me the lore showing the eating and sleeping habits of Azerothians. Your one example of a famine in westfall and some starving animals doesn't cut it.

Irrelevant.

Actually it's quite relevant. What if an Azerothian doesn't require food for months or years? You don't know any of this information for certain so you fill the void in lore with your own logic and opinion. That's head canon.

Also irrelevant. Your claim was that food and drinks are not something that is required for survival. The existence of famine irrevocably debunks your claim.

The famine is only in westfall. Whose to say that humans in westfall aren't simply different than other humans?

That was never my claim. Stop misrepresenting me. I said that gameplay is not lore. That is my claim.

That's gameplay being influenced by lore, not the other way around. Gameplay has zero impact on the lore. They are separate. And the arguments you're trying to make is forcing gameplay INTO lore.

And this is why I ignore you....

It is the lore.

Incorrect. You took a tidbit about metamorphosis possibly causing insanity and then said its a reason that Warlocks lost metamorphosis, which was never stated to be the case. That's textbook head canon. Blizzard has never officially stated in the lore exactly why or how Warlocks lost the ability to use metamorphosis, and because of that, lore-wise Warlocks can still perform metamorphosis.

I never made that claim. You, on the other hand, made a claim. Meaning you adopted the burden of proof for yourself. I am waiting for that evidence.

Again, check out the Lore forums here and on the official forums, then compare them to the class discussions, PvP discussions, or Raid discussions. Lore is way down on the list of concern for the majority of players. The official forums are especially bad when it comes to lore discussions.

Again, no one cares about any of this crap. Gameplay is king, story/lore is a DISTANT third behind graphics and art design.

It's still an universe that follows the same rules as our own, except when it doesn't.

You do know that that's a contradiction right? What's worse is that you contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

Don't move the goalposts. Your claim is that "tinkers are inventors" and that engineers are not. Both are inventors in the same field of technology.

If they're building completely different things for completely different purposes, it's not the same field of technology.

You mean the thing that has not been shown to exist in the lore?

Warcraft 3 is lore chief.

Tomato, tomato. Engineers also throw bombs through machines they control.

Yeah, because throwing a bomb is the same as a cruise missile getting launched from an aircraft carrier.

Yep, EXACTLY the same thing. Like Tomato, tomato.

[Unbelievable]

You do realize that the difference is that the abilities from Dark Ranger/Priestess of the Moon/Sea Witch/Blademaster/etc. are in Hunters/Shaman/Warrior/Rogue right?



So is Wildfire Bomb a Hunter bomb, or an engineering bomb?
Is Crimson Vial a Rogue vial, or an alchemy vial?
Is Nimble Brew a Monk brew, or a cooking brew?
Is Mana Gems a Mage gem, or a jewelcrafter gem?



Lore doesn't support it eh?



https://wow.gamepedia.com/Profession

Professions really have nothing to do with classes.



Non-magical Explosives are also physical.

Also you didn't show me anything, just some obscure quote. Feel free to name a Goblin bruiser in lore.

Why? because the Forsaken collaborated, particularly, with the Goblins in Darkshore, that's why. They have more of a connection to them than your Vulpera.



It's truly incredible how you type so much, yet still fail to make your point.



They didn't learn from the source either. The Pandaren Monk trainers and Stormstout himself come from the Wandering Isle, not Pandaria.





1. Which is why I said "full-blown Pandaren".
2. Yes even with frost powers. How do you think Kelthuzad became a Lich?
3. And at some point he taught his followers how to do it. We had multiple Illidari who could perform metamorphosis in TBC. To this day in WoW, Sylvanas has yet to produce a Dark Ranger with Banshee abilities. And frankly, she's probably done being a Dark Ranger.



My point still stands; Only Night Elves worship Elune. If the basis of this class is Elune worship, you're going to have to expand the lore or (more likely) acknowledge that the Night Warrior class is a non-starter.

"You do realize that the difference is that the themes of the Tinker are in the Engineering profession, Demon Hunter had its abilities in the Warlock, Rogue and Priest, and Death Knight had an ability in the Warlock, right?" - I can do this all day

The point is the Engineer combines all of the Tinker elements, not just one element like you specified above.

"Successful engineers use their inventions to solve problems and make life easier, faster, and better for themselves and their companions."

"Herbalists can supply themselves (or their guilds or groups) with an abundant quantity of reagents to aid in their crafting, or they can sell or trade bundles of herbs for a profit."

"Miners pursue valuable and useful ores, extracting them straight from the earth with their picks. Their familiarity with the land gives them a strong notion of where rich veins of gold, silver or even more precious metals can be found, and they retrieve and smelt these minerals for profit, or for use in metalworking of all types."

"Skinners ensure that nothing goes to waste by removing the hides of dead beasts and amassing piles of fur and leather. Skinning is a straightforward, convenient profession for those already engaged in hunting animals, but it's highly useful, too. Exotic leathers (such as dragonskin) can command high prices, and they are critical to leatherworking plans, as well as some of the recipes of other professions."

"By creating rare materials, Alchemists can make a great deal of money, enable the creation of powerful weapons and armor, and even influence the economy of Azeroth!"

"The gear that they make allows Blacksmiths (particularly those that equip heavy armor) to outfit themselves, equip party members or guildmates, and sell their craftsmanship via the auction house."

"Canny enchanters sell their unique services to other heroes, and command prices commensurate with the rarity of the work they produce."

"The craft of Leatherworking is useful to those who want to outfit themselves and others with suitable armors, as well as those who want to profit from selling their rare creations."

"Artifacts provide invaluable insight into the history of the world, but some collectors are more than willing to assign a monetary value to them. After documenting finds in their journal, archaeologists can sell the items they retrieve to vendors and museum curators for extra money."

Funny how they mention monetary gain for, almost, every profession's official overview but, not the Engineer's.

Explosives deal fire damage, not physical damage.

Named
Hikkle Ricksprinkle
Muzzlecrank
Bruiser Janx
Bruiser Snaptoe
Bruiser Toppleblade
Bruiser Wrenchvolt

Actually, i don't type so much. I copy-paste your paragraphs and change a few words to show you how dumb your arguments are.

The first paragraph shows you that categorizing a race by 2 NPCs you chose, applies to your case as well. If Forsaken are just rogues and hunters, then Goblins and Vulpera are just Engineers and Rogues.

The second paragraph shows you that being oppressed by another race is not unique to the Vulpera. It, also, happened to the Pandaren. And they dealt with it by learning martial arts. So, using you logic, for Vulpera to stand against their oppressors they need martial arts (which, they already master), not technology.

The third paragraph shows you that using the "concepts are, already, in different classes" argument also applies to your Tinker and the previously added Death Knight and Demon Hunters.

Which, originated from Pandaria and retained Pandaren culture.

1. But, we have seen a full-blown "Tinker" - Gazlowe. Why doesn't he have the contraption in WoW? why do other Goblin Tinkers don't have it? if you're gonna say "because the class isn't in, yet", then so are Dark Rangers. That's why you don't see a full Dark Ranger kit.
2. Kel'thuzad was raised by throwing his urn into the Sunwell. If you're gonna use that, then Dark Rangers having Wailing Arrow: "A deafening banshee's wail erupts from the arrow's impact, inflicting Shadow damage and silencing nearby enemies." is a sign of Sylvanas passing on her Banshee powers.
3. Let's see what your issues are:
Haunting Wave? a necromantic ability.
Possession? Dark Rangers had Charm.
Banshee's Curse? Warlocks can, also, curse.
Anti-magic Shell? Death Knights can use it, yet they are not Banshees.
Currently, there aren't any unique Banshee abilities that are stopping the Dark Ranger from being added. The Banshee form from BfA? not a requirement for Dark Rangers. Could it be resolved if they wanted to? yes. A new generation of Dark Rangers being raised as Banshees and regaining their physical bodies.

Sylvans is not done being a Dark Ranger. Given abilities by the Jailer didn't transform her into something else. Like how Tyrande still uses her Priestess of the Moon abilities as a Night Warrior, Illidan being a Demon Hunter before and after consuming the Skull of Gul'dan, and Arthas being a Death Knight before and after donning the Helm of Domination. You're just turning a blind eye to what's happening.

Your point doesn't stand. You just ignored everything. Thiernax had to worship Elune to become a Night Warrior, Zanaladri Lun'alai are heavily implied that the matron they worship is Elune. Worgen, literally, were created by the Scythe of Elune and Tauren worship the Earthmother and her two eyes (An'she and Mu'sha).

The Night Warrior (more commonly known as Priestess of the Moon) is as viable as other Warcraft III heroes. When Death Knight was added, it suddenly extended to previously unknown Death Knight races like Gnomes, Night Elves, Draenei, and Troll. When the Monk was added, it suddenly extended to previously unknown Monk races, like Dwarves, Gnomes, Night Elves, Orcs, Tauren, Trolls and Blood elves.

Saying that extending the lore to other races makes the class invalid makes your Tinker concept invalid, as well. If you have to expand the lore and and include Vulpera in it, then you have to acknowledge that the Tinker class is a non-starter.

You seriously think that WoW is successful because of its story? Blizzard as a whole has a reputation of producing games that are fun to play with polished gameplay. That's pretty much the backbone of the entire company. Their only real stumble so far was HotS.

Most people really don't give to ships about lore. They only care about the lore to see what might be coming next and how it might effect their characters. Raiding, PvP, and end game content is what the majority care about, and that's gameplay stuff. Look at how many threads are in the Lore forum here on MMOC compared to other forums for example.

Lore is one of the most important things in WoW. Otherwise, you can go play Minecraft - it is said to have an awesome gameplay.
Without lore, you wouldn't have any of the questing, raiding or PvP you like so much.

Gameplay, especially its decline since the end of Wrath, isn't what drawing people to play WoW. It's the cinematic trailers and features (new races, classes and customization options - which, are all based on lore) are what draws people to gain interest in WoW.

No it isn't. Lore is ONLY the story. There is nothing visual about lore.

Then, you missed all the lore books, especially the Chronicles. Every visual design in WoW, from Zones to creatures and classes are based on lore. without, you would have none of it.

[Teriz]

"You do realize that the difference is that the themes of the Tinker are in the Engineering profession, Demon Hunter had its abilities in the Warlock, Rogue and Priest, and Death Knight had an ability in the Warlock, right?" - I can do this all day

The point is the Engineer combines all of the Tinker elements, not just one element like you specified above.

Then explain how I can use engineering to enter Nathria inside a mech and use the mech's weapons against the mobs inside.

[Ielenia]

You do know that when you watch a television program or a play in a theatre there is an exchange of information right?

Geez. Read what exchange means: a trade, giving something to each other. The actors, props and wardrobes are not getting anything from us. I.e. there is no exchange. I.e. there is no interaction.

No it isn't. Lore is ONLY the story. There is nothing visual about lore.

Lore is also visual. For example: just looking at Maldraxxus' art style and visuals tells us a lot about its lore.

do you think either

I think game designers make gameplay, and writers and artists create lore. And when both happen to intersect, it's happenstance, not the rule.

Nope, just claiming that the humans living in westfall are possibly different than humans living elsewhere in the Eastern Kingdoms.

And that claim is not only absurd, but also has absolutely zero basis on the lore.

I'm engaging in head canon because you're engaging in head canon.

No, you're engaging in absurd nonense to argue against existing lore.

Also it doesn't make a lick of sense to you that humans aren't the only sentient race on Azeroth?

It does. Because we're given explanations for the existence of all those sentient races.

I asked you to give me the lore showing the eating and sleeping habits of Azerothians. Your one example of a famine in westfall and some starving animals doesn't cut it.

You asked for evidence that food and drinks are required for human sustenance, not their "sleeping and eating habits". And the factual existence of famine proves that eating and drinking are necessary for sustenance.

Actually it's quite relevant. What if an Azerothian doesn't require food for months or years? You don't know any of this information for certain so you fill the void in lore with your own logic and opinion. That's head canon.

There are children suffering of famine.

The famine is only in westfall.

That's irrelevant. It's a place where famine is happening. Famine doesn't have to be happening IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF WARCRAFT' for it to be considered part of the lore. What you're saying is that snow does not exist in the lore of Warcraft because it does not exist in all the zones. That swamps do not exist in the lore because it only exists in a tiny handful of zones.

Whose to say that humans in westfall aren't simply different than other humans?

Because it has no basis whatsoever in the lore. It's a completely nonsensical and asinine claim to make, one you are making just to try to avoid having to admit you are wrong.

And this is why I ignore you....

What you linked does not disprove what I said. Gameplay is not lore. That is a fact. Just because the two happen to intersect sometimes does not make gameplay lore.

Blizzard has never officially stated in the lore exactly why or how Warlocks lost the ability to use metamorphosis, and because of that, lore-wise Warlocks can still perform metamorphosis.

But they did. The continued use of metamorphosis leads to madness and the permanent transformation into a demon.

Again, check out the Lore forums here and on the official forums, then compare them to the class discussions, PvP discussions, or Raid discussions. Lore is way down on the list of concern for the majority of players. The official forums are especially bad when it comes to lore discussions.

Again, no one cares about any of this crap. Gameplay is king, story/lore is a DISTANT third behind graphics and art design.

In your opinion. Which has been shown to be rather unpopular, around here.

You do know that that's a contradiction right? What's worse is that you contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

How about you try to be honest for once, and do not erase and ignore the context behind the quote you so carefully quote-mined?

If they're building completely different things for completely different purposes, it's not the same field of technology.

It is the same things (bombs, mechs, guns, turrets, robotic minions) for the same purposes (improving themselves and helping allies). Therefore it's the same field of technology.

Warcraft 3 is lore chief.

Warcraft 3 is confirmed to be lore, employee. Warcraft 3: Reforged, on the other hand, its canonicity is still up in the air, thanks to all the inconsistencies and impossibilities shown in that remake.

Yeah, because throwing a bomb is the same as a cruise missile getting launched from an aircraft carrier.

A tinker dropping a turret is the same thing as an engineer dropping a turret. An engineer shooting a missile through a rocket launcher is the same thing as a tinker shooting a missile through a rocket launcher.

[jellmoo]

Well consider that the last two classes to enter WoW were both from that 20 year old game. Demon Hunters entered the game as a playable class only 4 years ago.

Sure, but for starters correlation does not imply causation. If we move beyond that, I'm just not interpreting the write up of the Tinker in WC3 the same way you are I guess. Nothing about thewrite up seems to indicate that these are the super genius inventors of the world that are appreciably different than what Engineers do, at a conceptual level.

I'm curious as to why you consider something that is working as intended to be a design flaw.

Well two reasons really. The first is the simplest: It doesn't actually work. Professions in general are a, these days, less than an afterthought. Engineering is a particularly bad example as it really has very little value. It's been turned into a method of making a few mounts, more than anything else. And secondly, though tying in with the first, is that the profession system has hardly been touched in any meaningful way since the game launched. Updates to the core system just haven't happened, and as the game progressed, they have become consistently less and less impactful.

Well why should we interpret it that way? Are professions equal to classes? Is a blacksmith in Stormwind as good or a better swordsman than a Warrior? Is an enchanter better at magic than a Mage?

Take a quick step back here to clarify something: A mage and an enchanter do completely different things. Mages in game don't enchant items, and Enchanters don't cast spells. A Blacksmith and a Warrior do completely different things. Warriors, in game, do not craft armor and weapons, and Blacksmiths do not use a variety of martial skills to fell foes.

Here's the thing. From a purely conceptual level, Tinkers and Engineers do exactly the same thing. They both biuld bombs. They both build mechs. They both build gizmos. They both build rockets.

If you have a random NPC watching a Mage, an Enchanter, a Warrior, a Blacksmith, a Tinker and an Engineer, that NPC could identify who the Mage, Warrior, Blacksmith and Enchanter are very easily. They would be utterly stumped as to which one was the Tinker and which one was the Engineer because by all appearances, they are doing the same thing.

Except the Brewmaster was loaded with those themes even as a WC3 hero. For example this was its ultimate ability;



How is that not Kung Fu Cinema, Wushu mystics, etc?

Because it's expanding on a theme, which is what a base class is. Read the write up of the Brewmaster unit again. It's specific. They brew beer, they drink beer, they fight. It's a specific theme. They interpreted that with 4 abilities, including the above. Blizzard took that and broadened it. They made it possible to fulfill the additional archetypes because that's what the base class should be. Otherwise we would have been given the Brewmaster class and not the Monk class.

Also you're mixing up the influences a bit here. The Monk class only took from the Pandaren Brewmaster and took that archetype and stretched it for a healing spec. Mages took from the Archmage, the Lich, the Bloodmage, and Sorcerers. That's an example of a variety of archetypes, not the Monk class.

Except I'm talking character concepts, not game units from WC3. I don't care about abilities from WC3 units. At all. I'm talking about common fantasy archetypes that get encapsulated into a base class. Because at the end of the day it's an MMO that allows players to create an avatar for themselves. These classes represent what they want to create in game, and the base classes, across the board, are flexibke enough to allow them to create from a multitude of class concepts.

Well its role in the game world is rather irrelevant. Farseers and Shaman co-exist in the game world for example, and we're never getting a Farseer class because its entire concept is wrapped up in the Shaman class. What matters is the role the DK plays in the class lineup, and that is as the game's Necromancer. In the game world we have Pandaren Monks along with Monks who know Draenei, Blood Elf, Gnomish, etc. martial arts. We're never getting another Monk class.

It's relevant to my point though. Because the Shaman absorbs those class concepts because the Shaman class is flexible in design, It's not specific. It allows for a Farseer because the class is broad. In game, Death Knights are not Necromancers, even if they fill that "role". Death Knights are Death Knights. Death Knights are created at fixed points in time, by a fixed person, for a fixed goal. Same with Demon Hunters. Monks aren't. Monks are flexible. They exist in the same way as all of the other base classes do.

Okay, but can you really say that you couldn't take the Brewmaster hero from WC3 and think about adding a few kicks and punches to the mix? That really isn't a huge leap in concept from the WC3 hero base. I mean it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a Drunker fighter with a staff whom is clearly a homage to Kung Fu films would have the ability to do more Kung Fu stuff if fleshed out more. Because of that, I can't agree that it isn't representative of the original Brewmaster concept.

Mistweaver I can agree with. That is 100% concoction of Blizzard, but not Windwalker. Once you establish that the Brewmaster is a Kung Fu fighter, you can create the Windwalker spec in your sleep.

Well of course, I'm not arguing that it's difficult. They took the Brewmaster and built the Monk class around it. But a Windwalker is not a Brewmaster, nor is Mistweaver. They don't contain the narrative behind the Brewmaster, because they aren't Brewmasters. They are concepts that Blizzard cam up with to flesh out the Monk class. Because a Brewmaster is a wholly specific thing that they absolutely could have built three specs around (and I honestly would have prefered that), but that made it like the other base classes and left it open enough that players could jump in a make a wider variety of characters than just that.

I'm not saying it's equivalent, I'm saying it fits the overall theme of a Brewmaster. It also continues the general theme of a character that is an amazing fighter, and an amazing maker of brews. He's so good at those aspects in fact, that he can do both at the same time.

Again: "Hailing from the secretive Pandaren Empire, the mighty brewmasters travel the world in search of exotic ales and the finest brewed spirits. These affable warriors rarely seek out danger or trouble, preferring instead to spend their time concocting new and tasty beverages for any brave enough to imbibe them. However, if attacked, the laughing brewmasters bring all of their pandaren agility and ferocity to bear! They even bring their beer to war! They are peerless warriors and world class drinkers all in one!"

Absolutely nothing about that write up says that they can make a bitchin' cup of tea and heal people. They aren't thematically similar, other than the fact that both will put something in their mouth.

A player really has to wrap their heads around the concept that every single little thing their character does isn't part of the general story of the game?

As for the logical fallacy of being able to do engineering, but not being able to become a Tinker, again we can look to the MCU; There are engineers, and there's Tony Stark. Tony Stark is an engineer, but every engineer isn't Tony Stark. In other words, even if it were lore-based that a Tauren could learn profession engineering, that has nothing to do with the Tinker.

No, but they have to wrap their heads around the concept that they can make a character of any race that can make mechs, guns, bombs and gizmos but not make a character of any race that can make mechs, guns, bombs and gizmos. Telling a player that they can do something, just not do it in a way that's meaningful and fun is really rather shitty.

And when we go back to Tony Stark, we see a ton of people flying around in Iron Man armor. So is the Tinker actually tony Stark? Or is the Tinker every one of those people in an Iron Man suit?

And engineering doesn't build the Tinker's devices which are more advanced and more powerful.

Again, that's head canon based off of the way the mechanics of the game work.

If they're mechanically different and don't serve the same purpose, why would I need to prove that they're different? They are different.

Because the game follows a set of rules to create a playing experience that don't exist in a 1 to 1 fashion. Because NPCs don't actually have professions in game. An NPC can't actually craft an item and use it. They simply have abilities that they use. It's a mechanical bypass that allows PCs to actually fight NPCs. Enemy NPCs in the game can't make Engineering items, even if they are labeled as an Engineer. Saying that Tinker abilities are more powerful than Engineer abilities because the mechanics of the game force them to work in that manner is a really weird assertion.

The game abstracts things so that the players can experience them.

Except they don't do the same thing. A warrior practicing engineering is building goggles to sell at an auction. A Tinker builds a mech in order to tank a raid. A mage crafting a engineering trinket isn't really the same thing as a Tinker inside a mech launching a volley of bombs from the sky.

But they do. A Warrior using Engineering can build a bomb to throw at enemies. A Warrior using Engineering can build a mech to ride around in. A Warrior using engineering can use jumper cables to revive an ally. Step back from the mechanics. In game, what's the difference? If you have a Kobold NPC that is trying desperately not to lose candle, and a dude runs up to him, throws a bomb at him and he dies, is it terribly different to that Kobold whether that person was a Tinker or an Engineer?

Which they can do; Outside of combat.

Sure. You can ride around in a mech outside of combat too. Does that satisfy your fantasy?

Can a Monkey brew a cup of tea while spinning a staff, doing a backflip, and sending a stream of healing mists to their friends?

With enough training... Maybe... Granted I'm not a monkey expert.

What?

You're assuming that the point of the Demon Hunter is the mechanic of turning into a Demon at the right time to fight. The point of the Demon Hunter class could have just as easily have been to fight as a Demon at all times, pretty much like Illidan.

[url]https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/mechagnome-love-thread-

Eh, half the thread is actually people complaining about them. I mean, every race obviously is going to have some fans, but by and large I don't think the aesthetic is what you might consider popular. I personally don't think that a class is going to fix it, especially when you consider that at this point they are a pain to unlock, especially when compared to Vulpera, who are already very popular.

[Unbelievable]

Then explain how I can use engineering to enter Nathria inside a mech and use the mech's weapons against the mobs inside.

Elements of it. Meaning, you can create a mech and use it. Doesn't mean it works the way you want it to.

[Teriz]

Elements of it. Meaning, you can create a mech and use it. Doesn't mean it works the way you want it to.

You said that engineering combines all the Tinker’s elements. Being able to fight inside a mech is the most important one. So yeah, that was a false statement.

Btw, not the way I want it to, the way it’s supposed to.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but for starters correlation does not imply causation. If we move beyond that, I'm just not interpreting the write up of the Tinker in WC3 the same way you are I guess. Nothing about thewrite up seems to indicate that these are the super genius inventors of the world that are appreciably different than what Engineers do, at a conceptual level.

I wasn’t trying to imply any causation. I was merely showing that as late as 4 years ago Blizzard was still pulling from that 20 year old game.

Well two reasons really. The first is the simplest: It doesn't actually work. Professions in general are a, these days, less than an afterthought. Engineering is a particularly bad example as it really has very little value. It's been turned into a method of making a few mounts, more than anything else. And secondly, though tying in with the first, is that the profession system has hardly been touched in any meaningful way since the game launched. Updates to the core system just haven't happened, and as the game progressed, they have become consistently less and less impactful.

I would actually disagree. Their goggle helmets are easily the most sought after form of equipment, with the non-engineering ones selling for very high amounts.

Take a quick step back here to clarify something: A mage and an enchanter do completely different things. Mages in game don't enchant items, and Enchanters don't cast spells. A Blacksmith and a Warrior do completely different things. Warriors, in game, do not craft armor and weapons, and Blacksmiths do not use a variety of martial skills to fell foes.

Here's the thing. From a purely conceptual level, Tinkers and Engineers do exactly the same thing. They both biuld bombs. They both build mechs. They both build gizmos. They both build rockets.

If you have a random NPC watching a Mage, an Enchanter, a Warrior, a Blacksmith, a Tinker and an Engineer, that NPC could identify who the Mage, Warrior, Blacksmith and Enchanter are very easily. They would be utterly stumped as to which one was the Tinker and which one was the Engineer because by all appearances, they are doing the same thing.

Actually I would disagree again. The bomb that hit you from the Tinker would be far more powerful than the engineering bomb because it was launched, not tossed like a baseball. In addition, the two don’t do the same thing. Tinkers don’t build bombs and rockets, they build the machine that builds the bombs and rockets.

I would also disagree with the notion that engineers “build” their mech. They follow schematics to build a rough copy of another engineers mech. Meanwhile, the Tinker builds their own mech without schematics. So yeah, there’s definitely a difference.

Except I'm talking character concepts, not game units from WC3. I don't care about abilities from WC3 units. At all. I'm talking about common fantasy archetypes that get encapsulated into a base class. Because at the end of the day it's an MMO that allows players to create an avatar for themselves. These classes represent what they want to create in game, and the base classes, across the board, are flexibke enough to allow them to create from a multitude of class concepts.

Uh, the entire point of this were class concepts from WC3.

It's relevant to my point though. Because the Shaman absorbs those class concepts because the Shaman class is flexible in design, It's not specific. It allows for a Farseer because the class is broad. In game, Death Knights are not Necromancers, even if they fill that "role". Death Knights are Death Knights. Death Knights are created at fixed points in time, by a fixed person, for a fixed goal. Same with Demon Hunters. Monks aren't. Monks are flexible. They exist in the same way as all of the other base classes do.

Again, the Shaman has multiple hero and unit concepts from WC3 in its class concept. The Monk only has one, and that one concept is a Pandaren martial artist who brews.

Again: "Hailing from the secretive Pandaren Empire, the mighty brewmasters travel the world in search of exotic ales and the finest brewed spirits. These affable warriors rarely seek out danger or trouble, preferring instead to spend their time concocting new and tasty beverages for any brave enough to imbibe them. However, if attacked, the laughing brewmasters bring all of their pandaren agility and ferocity to bear! They even bring their beer to war! They are peerless warriors and world class drinkers all in one!"

Absolutely nothing about that write up says that they can make a bitchin' cup of tea and heal people. They aren't thematically similar, other than the fact that both will put something in their mouth.

Tea can’t be a tasty beverage?

[Unbelievable]

You said that engineering combines all the Tinker’s elements. Being able to fight inside a mech is the most important one. So yeah, that was a false statement.

Btw, not the way I want it to, the way it’s supposed to.

https://www.wowhead.com/item=132531/...ed-combat-mode

Actually I would disagree again. The bomb that hit you from the Tinker would be far more powerful than the engineering bomb because it was launched, not tossed like a baseball. In addition, the two don’t do the same thing. Tinkers don’t build bombs and rockets, they build the machine that builds the bombs and rockets.

I would also disagree with the notion that engineers “build” their mech. They follow schematics to build a rough copy of another engineers mech. Meanwhile, the Tinker builds their own mech without schematics. So yeah, there’s definitely a difference.

And i'm the one using semantics...

Aren't 160 pages enough?
This is kinda getting repetitive....

[Teriz]

[
https://www.wowhead.com/item=132531/...ed-combat-mode

Not viable.

Aren't 160 pages enough?
This is kinda getting repetitive....

No one is forcing you to post in this thread.

[jellmoo]

I would actually disagree. Their goggle helmets are easily the most sought after form of equipment, with the non-engineering ones selling for very high amounts.

That's a symptom of the problem though. Professions have changed from being viable for gearing your character and creating things that you'd actually use. Engineering was actually useful for the things you'd make at one time. Now it's used to make vanity items and mounts to sell on the AH.

Actually I would disagree again. The bomb that hit you from the Tinker would be far more powerful than the engineering bomb because it was launched, not tossed like a baseball. In addition, the two don’t do the same thing. Tinkers don’t build bombs and rockets, they build the machine that builds the bombs and rockets.

Considering that the Tinker class doesn't exist yet, we don't know that. A Tinker, for example, might very well be making bombs that they chuck at enemies. Hell, I certainly hope they do because that's a part of the class fantasy I want to see. You're making some really big assumptions here.

I would also disagree with the notion that engineers “build” their mech. They follow schematics to build a rough copy of another engineers mech. Meanwhile, the Tinker builds their own mech without schematics. So yeah, there’s definitely a difference.

That's also a made up piece of headcanon though. Again, we could have a school of Engineers, say, Mekkatorque's Machinarium, where everything they learn is derived from Gelbin. They are making a mech from his specs and schematics. Or we could have Tinkers have an entire crew of people that help build their mechs. Or they could find their mechs in the ruin of a Titan factory. We don't know.

Uh, the entire point of this were class concepts from WC3.

But they aren't because they aren't relevant to what I'm saying. I don't care about units from WC3 as I don't believe that anyone at Blizzard is seriously thinking "we absolutely need to use WC3 as a basis for class design". They may, they may not. I just don't think it terribly matters. What I do think matters is the creation of archetypes that let players fulfill their class fantasy.

Again, the Shaman has multiple hero and unit concepts from WC3 in its class concept. The Monk only has one, and that one concept is a Pandaren martial artist who brews.

I mean, that's because there was a playable faction in WC3 based on a mishmash of Shamanstic cultures. So yeah, they combined a bunch of the units into one and made a class broad enough to cover player concepts across them. There was no Eastern themed faction in WC3. Just the one unit. That's it. If they had made an entire Pandaren faction, we would almost certainly have gotten a class that picked bits and pieces from whatever units it had. Because they were making a class broad enough to fulfill multiple archetypes. Archetypes both inside (represented by those units) and outside of the Warcraft world.

Tea can’t be a tasty beverage?

Dude, please just concede the point. Clearly nothing in the description of the beer loving, spirits drinking, ale brewing Pandaren Brewmaster has to do with a cup of tea. You're digging your heels in on the absolute weirdest point here.

[Teriz]

That's a symptom of the problem though. Professions have changed from being viable for gearing your character and creating things that you'd actually use. Engineering was actually useful for the things you'd make at one time. Now it's used to make vanity items and mounts to sell on the AH.

Vanity items and mounts aren't useful things? Isn't the goal of professions to make items that will maximize profit? I know the Sky Golem still fetches a pretty penny, and again, if you're producing the goggles you're not hurting in terms of money making.

Considering that the Tinker class doesn't exist yet, we don't know that. A Tinker, for example, might very well be making bombs that they chuck at enemies. Hell, I certainly hope they do because that's a part of the class fantasy I want to see. You're making some really big assumptions here.

Except they wouldn't. Every iteration of the Tinker we've seen outside of WoW has utilized some form of mech technology. We also see prominent Gnomes and Goblins in mechs as well, so its pretty much a certainty that a mech will be employed in the class. There's a high chance that a mech will be employed in every single spec.

When we consider that reality, yeah you're going to have a class piloting a machine they built that mass produces explosives and launches those explosives at enemies. Unlike the profession where they have to scavenge for materials, construct an inferior explosive, and toss it at their target.

That's also a made up piece of headcanon though. Again, we could have a school of Engineers, say, Mekkatorque's Machinarium, where everything they learn is derived from Gelbin. They are making a mech from his specs and schematics. Or we could have Tinkers have an entire crew of people that help build their mechs. Or they could find their mechs in the ruin of a Titan factory. We don't know.

I honestly wouldn't have an issue with any of those scenarios taking place. However, the most likely one is that when the Tinker reaches level 5, they have some quest where they're ordered to build their mech, and they simply do it from memory and genius.

But they aren't because they aren't relevant to what I'm saying. I don't care about units from WC3 as I don't believe that anyone at Blizzard is seriously thinking "we absolutely need to use WC3 as a basis for class design". They may, they may not. I just don't think it terribly matters. What I do think matters is the creation of archetypes that let players fulfill their class fantasy.

It's not a "if they may", it's exactly what they do. WC3 heroes aren't just remnants of an old Blizzard game, they're also franchise characters. Consider that the Death Knight is tied to Arthas/Lich King. Monks are tied to Chen Stormstout. Demon Hunters are tied to Illidan. Where else do you see those characters?

In Heroes of the Storm.

In Hearthstone.

In Blizzard promotional material.

They're franchise characters. Now, what would be the benefit of tying your new WoW class to one of your franchise characters?

What's the franchise character for Tinkers? Gazlowe.

I mean, that's because there was a playable faction in WC3 based on a mishmash of Shamanstic cultures. So yeah, they combined a bunch of the units into one and made a class broad enough to cover player concepts across them. There was no Eastern themed faction in WC3. Just the one unit. That's it. If they had made an entire Pandaren faction, we would almost certainly have gotten a class that picked bits and pieces from whatever units it had. Because they were making a class broad enough to fulfill multiple archetypes. Archetypes both inside (represented by those units) and outside of the Warcraft world.

Paladins were part of the Human faction with elves and dwarves. They still only pulled from the Paladin hero for the WoW class.

Dude, please just concede the point. Clearly nothing in the description of the beer loving, spirits drinking, ale brewing Pandaren Brewmaster has to do with a cup of tea. You're digging your heels in on the absolute weirdest point here.

I'm simply pointing out that it's bizarre that you simply won't admit that people brew tea, so it fits the overall brewmaster theme.

[jellmoo]

Vanity items and mounts aren't useful things? Isn't the goal of professions to make items that will maximize profit? I know the Sky Golem still fetches a pretty penny, and again, if you're producing the goggles you're not hurting in terms of money making.

Because back in the day, you would actively use what you crafted. Sure, you'd sell stuff on the AH, but it wasn't the only reason to craft stuff. Engineering items were actually useful. They were regularly used in both PVE and PVP. Now? Not so much. Largely because the system itself hasn't been kept up or updated as the game as progressed.

Except they wouldn't. Every iteration of the Tinker we've seen outside of WoW has utilized some form of mech technology. We also see prominent Gnomes and Goblins in mechs as well, so its pretty much a certainty that a mech will be employed in the class. There's a high chance that a mech will be employed in every single spec.

Again, that's your assumption. Prior to WotLK we could have assumed that a Death Knight would be fighting from horseback. They don't. There's no "high probbility" that every spec flies around in a mech. They might. They might not. A mech might be included in a single spec. It might be a form. It might be a cooldown. It might be something akin to the old Metamorphosis ability from Warlocks. It might not be present at all. Everything is supposition here. My thought would be that it's amazingly unlikely that every spec would have a mech. I could absolutely be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

When we consider that reality, yeah you're going to have a class piloting a machine they built that mass produces explosives and launches those explosives at enemies. Unlike the profession where they have to scavenge for materials, construct an inferior explosive, and toss it at their target.

Again, supposition. You are assuming a bunch of stuff that we don't know. You may absolutely be right. But you may also be completely wrong. As it stabds, it's very much up to Blizzard to sort out a bunch of stuff if they ever decide to implement a Tinker class. The absolute least of which is how they want to make the class function in a world where Engineering is already a profession.

I honestly wouldn't have an issue with any of those scenarios taking place. However, the most likely one is that when the Tinker reaches level 5, they have some quest where they're ordered to build their mech, and they simply do it from memory and genius.

I would think it's just as likely that they would have to acquire the plans and build the mech from that.

It's not a "if they may", it's exactly what they do. WC3 heroes aren't just remnants of an old Blizzard game, they're also franchise characters. Consider that the Death Knight is tied to Arthas/Lich King. Monks are tied to Chen Stormstout. Demon Hunters are tied to Illidan. Where else do you see those characters?

In Heroes of the Storm.

In Hearthstone.

In Blizzard promotional material.

They're franchise characters. Now, what would be the benefit of tying your new WoW class to one of your franchise characters?

What's the franchise character for Tinkers? Gazlowe.

And none of the Franchise characters are exactly what we got in terms of our classes. Death Knights are not the all powerful Arthas. Monks are clearly way more than the very limited Chen Stormstout. Demon Hunters aren't permanent demons like Illidan is.

Why would Tinkers have to be virtually identical to Gazlowe? There is plenty of room to open the class up to interpretation that can take inspiration from a character, without needing to do a 1 to 1 recreation.

Paladins were part of the Human faction with elves and dwarves. They still only pulled from the Paladin hero for the WoW class.

Sure. And that's fine. Blizzard extrapolated a class purely from that unit, having to create a DPS spec in the process. They could have taken a bunch of different approaches, but that's the one they chose. Because at the end of the day, there's no set rule they have to follow about how they decide to build their classes in WoW.

I'm simply pointing out that it's bizarre that you simply won't admit that people brew tea, so it fits the overall brewmaster theme.

Because in something that is all about the making, drinking and enjoyment of beer and alcohol, brewing tea is clearly not a part of that fantasy and I'm astonished that I even need to spell this out. Grabbing onto the word brew and using it as proof of connection between the brewing of booze, a staple of the Drunken Master archetype the unit is quite clearly based on, and the brewing of tea which is not, is grasping at straws to avoid conceding the point that these things are in fact, not connected.

[Ielenia]

Actually I would disagree again. The bomb that hit you from the Tinker would be far more powerful than the engineering bomb because it was launched, not tossed like a baseball.

Who said the engineer would "tossing it like a baseball" and not launching it through a device? And who said the tinker wouldn't be throwing said bomb "like a baseball"?

That's right: it's your headcanon. It's amazing how you dismiss other people's arguments as headcanon, but you not only have no problem whatsoever in engaging in headcanon of your own, but worse: also stating it as fact.

I would also disagree with the notion that engineers “build” their mech.

Following schematics or not is irrelevant. They do build their mechs. That's a fact. It's amazing how you insist on semantics, trying to redefine words like "build", here.

Meanwhile, the Tinker builds their own mech without schematics.

Pure headcanon with zero basis in lore.

So yeah, there’s definitely a difference.

In your head only.

[Teriz]

Because back in the day, you would actively use what you crafted. Sure, you'd sell stuff on the AH, but it wasn't the only reason to craft stuff. Engineering items were actually useful. They were regularly used in both PVE and PVP. Now? Not so much. Largely because the system itself hasn't been kept up or updated as the game as progressed.

That was changed because the system caused imbalance within the profession system. If you have a profession that can make useable weapons, then everyone is going to spec into that profession to be competitive, and that's what happened. In WotLK you even had a situation where a profession bomb was mistuned and it lead to multiple raids abusing the bomb in order to clear content more quickly. Frankly professions are better off now than they were back then. Blizzard just needs to push the current profession system a bit further.

Interestingly, I believe a Tinker class could actually benefit a profession like engineering. They could create mech packs that allow Tinker players to customize their mechs and robot summons, they could make special armor sets for the character models, they could make decals or paint kits so that players make their mechs different colors or add logos, etc. Alchemists could create concoctions that would increase Tinker move speed, or resource regeneration, alter the color of their chemical weapons, etc. In turn, Tinker players could get a bonus to engineering and alchemy.

That's how you improve professions; Align them closer with the classes.

Again, that's your assumption. Prior to WotLK we could have assumed that a Death Knight would be fighting from horseback. They don't. There's no "high probbility" that every spec flies around in a mech. They might. They might not. A mech might be included in a single spec. It might be a form. It might be a cooldown. It might be something akin to the old Metamorphosis ability from Warlocks. It might not be present at all. Everything is supposition here. My thought would be that it's amazingly unlikely that every spec would have a mech. I could absolutely be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

DK riding from horseback wasn't an ability. Farseer and Archmage also didn't get to permanently ride around on horseback.

On the hand, the Tinker mech form was the Tinker's ultimate ability. Every expansion class that has entered WoW has received all of its WC3 abilities translated into WoW. It stands to reason that the Tinker would follow suit.

Again, supposition. You are assuming a bunch of stuff that we don't know. You may absolutely be right. But you may also be completely wrong. As it stabds, it's very much up to Blizzard to sort out a bunch of stuff if they ever decide to implement a Tinker class. The absolute least of which is how they want to make the class function in a world where Engineering is already a profession.

If we've established that the Tinker will be piloting a mech, then obviously a mech isn't going to be throwing a bomb, it will be launching one. Both the Tinker from WC3 and Gazlowe from HotS launched bombs and missiles at their targets, they weren't tossing bombs like Super Mario;

https://fantendo.fandom.com/wiki/Bom...io_NSMBDIY.png

Or like Hunters for that matter.

I would think it's just as likely that they would have to acquire the plans and build the mech from that.

Perhaps, or it could just appear as an ability at level 5 with no explanation. Either way, they won't be building it the way engineers build it.

And none of the Franchise characters are exactly what we got in terms of our classes. Death Knights are not the all powerful Arthas. Monks are clearly way more than the very limited Chen Stormstout. Demon Hunters aren't permanent demons like Illidan is.

Why would Tinkers have to be virtually identical to Gazlowe? There is plenty of room to open the class up to interpretation that can take inspiration from a character, without needing to do a 1 to 1 recreation.

Nope, the classes are approximations of the lore character, and the lore character embodies the essence of the class. I never said anything about them being "identical", simply that Gazlowe will be used front and center as an example of a Tinker character, just like Arthas, Chen, and Illidan were used as examples of Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters. In addition, Blizzard can use Gazlowe for advertising and merchandising like they did with the previous three lore characters.

Sure. And that's fine. Blizzard extrapolated a class purely from that unit, having to create a DPS spec in the process. They could have taken a bunch of different approaches, but that's the one they chose. Because at the end of the day, there's no set rule they have to follow about how they decide to build their classes in WoW.

I wouldn't say there's a set "rule" but it's quite clear that Blizzard has a way of building their WoW classes, and one way that is pretty obvious is that they're using WC3 Heroes and franchise characters as builders of their class system. When you really think about it it makes sense. WC3 heroes and major lore characters already have an established fan base, and people want to play as those heroes (or at least an approximation of them).

Because in something that is all about the making, drinking and enjoyment of beer and alcohol, brewing tea is clearly not a part of that fantasy and I'm astonished that I even need to spell this out. Grabbing onto the word brew and using it as proof of connection between the brewing of booze, a staple of the Drunken Master archetype the unit is quite clearly based on, and the brewing of tea which is not, is grasping at straws to avoid conceding the point that these things are in fact, not connected.

I wasn't grabbing onto the word "Brew". I was pointing out that in MoP and WoD Brewmasters, Windwalkers, and Mistweavers ALL had a brewing ability and all had spec-unique brews. These were concepts that came from the fact that the class was based on the Pandaren Brewmaster.

[razorpax]

Dragon slayer class:
Once the old gods were defeated Wrathion was concerned about the planets defense and decided to team up with the other flights to train a force that has the strength of the aspects and in doing so has discovered new troubles on the once lost dragon isles including a new clutch of protodrakes and the rumored return of the biggest threat the dragons faced...Galakrond. The rumors only strengthened by the missing remains in northrend

4 specs

Base abilities:
Dragon breath: breathe a 15yd cone dealing damage based on your spec generates 15 draconic fury
Wing blast: form wings if draconic magic and knock enemies in front of you back 15yds
Dragon claw: slash at a target dealing physical damage and leaving a DoT. Generates 10 draconic fury
Dragon scales: cover your body in scales reducing the damage you take by X%

Dragon force: 100 draconic energy. Empowers your abilities for 20s adding specific secondary abilities based on spec.

Specs:

Black dragon: tank. Generates fury if attacked while using a defensive.
Shield of the warder: 50 fury empowers your draconic scales to reduce damage by X% more dealing aoe damage when struck. If used during dragon force the duration and reduction is doubled.

Blue dragon: ranged dps. Replaces melee abilities with a ranged equivalent.

Spellweave: steals a beneficial magic effect from your target and spreads to up to 5 allies. Can target allies.

Mana surge: 30 fury. Deals damage and increases each consecutive use up to X%. When used during dragon force increases the max % damage bonus and reduces fury cost by 15

Green dragon: healer

Dreamers gift: restores resources to the allies within range

Nature’s roar: generates a large healing zone summoning dream copies of the player that copy the spells cast on injured allies. During dragon force the duration and amount of copies are doubled

Red dragon: melee dps

Sword horn: charges the enemy stunning and leaving aoe and a dot.

Roaring slash: 50 fury. Consumes all of your dots increasing damage for each one. During dragon force damage is increased and Deals AoE damage


Bronze: due to the disappearance of the bronze aspect the flight is too busy too offer extensive training but has allowed Chromie to train the slayers in the ability to warp time and reverse death

[jellmoo]

That was changed because the system caused imbalance within the profession system. If you have a profession that can make useable weapons, then everyone is going to spec into that profession to be competitive, and that's what happened. In WotLK you even had a situation where a profession bomb was mistuned and it lead to multiple raids abusing the bomb in order to clear content more quickly. Frankly professions are better off now than they were back then. Blizzard just needs to push the current profession system a bit further.

Gotta strongly disagree here. Professions are largely meaningless now, other than for gold making, and even then, the time and investment isn't always all that great depending on the server. Professions used to offer the player viable rewards for investing that time and energy. Some crafted weapons were among the best in the game. Some engineering items were vital either for raids or for PVP. Professions offered a viable path for players to invest in, and actually gain a measure of character power from. Look at all of the things you can make with Engineering now, and look how many of those things are utterly meaningless. That's a problem with the Profession system.

Interestingly, I believe a Tinker class could actually benefit a profession like engineering. They could create mech packs that allow Tinker players to customize their mechs and robot summons, they could make special armor sets for the character models, they could make decals or paint kits so that players make their mechs different colors or add logos, etc. Alchemists could create concoctions that would increase Tinker move speed, or resource regeneration, alter the color of their chemical weapons, etc. In turn, Tinker players could get a bonus to engineering and alchemy.

That's how you improve professions; Align them closer with the classes.

Wow, I really don't like that. A profession shouldn't feel mandatory to a class. Players should have at least *some* freedom when it comes to pairing a profession to what they play. A profession should ideally offer *something* to every class. Regardless, we have ventured entirely off topic. My fault, professions are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

DK riding from horseback wasn't an ability. Farseer and Archmage also didn't get to permanently ride around on horseback.

On the hand, the Tinker mech form was the Tinker's ultimate ability. Every expansion class that has entered WoW has received all of its WC3 abilities translated into WoW. It stands to reason that the Tinker would follow suit.

Not to be trite, but who cares if it's an ability or not? To the guy that was dreaming about playing a mounted Death Knight since WC3 days, it doesn't matter in the least. We can't just dismiss it out of hand and say "well, it wasn't an actual ability, so your desire to fulfill that fantasy isn't valid".

If we've established that the Tinker will be piloting a mech,

Sorry to interrupt, but we haven't.

...then obviously a mech isn't going to be throwing a bomb, it will be launching one. Both the Tinker from WC3 and Gazlowe from HotS launched bombs and missiles at their targets, they weren't tossing bombs like Super Mario;

Let's assume that Tinkers do get a Mech though. Just for this scenario. Now imagine what they do from, say, levels 1 to 5, before they get their first mech.

Is it really a stretch to think that a Tinker might not be tossing a bomb at any enemy?

Perhaps, or it could just appear as an ability at level 5 with no explanation. Either way, they won't be building it the way engineers build it.

Absolute agreement. For a Tinker, it could absolutely just pop up in a spellbook, and next thing they're in a mech. And Engineers are obviously doing it very differently, investing a ton of in game time and resources in order to create their mechs. No argument there.

But that's from a mechanics level. From an in game perspective, what does this look like? What does Farmer Joe think when he sees two mechs roll up to his farm, and from each one springs a Gnome with a wrench to do whatever Gnomish repairs they do. One is a Tinker and one is an Engineer. From the perspective of the inhabitants of Azeroth, what's the difference between the two?

Nope, the classes are approximations of the lore character, and the lore character embodies the essence of the class. I never said anything about them being "identical", simply that Gazlowe will be used front and center as an example of a Tinker character, just like Arthas, Chen, and Illidan were used as examples of Death Knights, Monks, and Demon Hunters. In addition, Blizzard can use Gazlowe for advertising and merchandising like they did with the previous three lore characters.

Then here's the thing that we are disagreeing on: In your opinion, the essence of Gazlowe is a dude in a mech. For my money, the essence of Gazlowe is a clever guy that can improvise pieces of tech that handle a massive variety of situations. Could it include a mech? Sure. Maybe. Does it need to? Nah. No more than Demon Hunters needed to be in Demon Form all the time.

(side note: I would be incredibly surprised to see Gazlowe used in any wide scale merchandising or advertising. Like, super surprised.

I wouldn't say there's a set "rule" but it's quite clear that Blizzard has a way of building their WoW classes, and one way that is pretty obvious is that they're using WC3 Heroes and franchise characters as builders of their class system. When you really think about it it makes sense. WC3 heroes and major lore characters already have an established fan base, and people want to play as those heroes (or at least an approximation of them).

The thing is, I think this is an example of the human brain finding patterns and running with them. I mean, the team that designed and built the core classes is not the same as the one that built the Death Knight, which is not the same as the one that built the Monk, which is not the same as the one that built the Demon Hunter, which won't be the same as whatever the next class built is. WC3 absolutely has fans, no doubt. But that fanbase has been thoroughly eclipsed by people who are fans of WoW. People that probably never touched WC3. And WoW has a longer and richer history than all of the RTS titles combined.

And it absolutely makes a ton of sense that WoW classes we're heavily, heavily influenced by WC3. But, I think that a key difference we're running into is that they just don't need to do that anymore. The world building is done. The core of the game is there. They can still absolutely go back to the well and take inspiration from WC3. For sure. But they really don't have to at this point. WoW is way bigger now.

I wasn't grabbing onto the word "Brew". I was pointing out that in MoP and WoD Brewmasters, Windwalkers, and Mistweavers ALL had a brewing ability and all had spec-unique brews. These were concepts that came from the fact that the class was based on the Pandaren Brewmaster.

Go to bar and ask for a brew. Are you going to get a cup of tea or a beer? Context matters. In the context of the Pandaren Brewmaster, that brews beer, and drinks spirits, and rolls around with ale, and spits out fiery alcohol and whose entire write up is references to drinking beer, the concept of brewing a cup of tea is just not even remotely tied to it. If the ability was "brew mana beer" and the writeup for the Mistweaver made even a passign reference to brewing, or alcholo, or beer, at all, you wwould have a point. But it's not called, and those references aren't there. Largely because the Mistweaver spec is not based on the Drunken Master archetype, nor does it take anything from the Panadren Brewmaster unit from WC3.