[Concept] Tinkerer Class

[Triceron]

Yeah, but its not magic, its tech. Also Draenei/Naaru tech is similarly exotic, yet you had no issue with that.

Because it's culturally tied and thematic to existing races. It's exotic but not OP on the level of Titan technology in the lore.

And again, Titan technology is not magic. Calling it something it's not over and over again wont change that fact.

But who are you marketting this to? If they put Tinker on the big screen at Blizzcon, and they say they're using Titan technology, then they better have a rock-solid concept behind it all. Otherwise it's a shallow concept in and of itself. I'm not looking for Nano-suit Ironman Tinkers.

[Teriz]

Because it's culturally tied and thematic to existing races. It's exotic but not OP on the level of Titan technology in the lore.

And again, in lore we've already had an example of Goblin-Titan technology.

But who are you marketting this to? If they put Tinker on the big screen at Blizzcon, and they say they're using Titan technology, then they better have a rock-solid concept behind it all. Otherwise it's a shallow concept in and of itself. I'm not looking for Nano-suit Ironman Tinkers.

Frankly I dont think anyone would care. If anything, I believe that a class revolving around a warframe utilizing hybridized gnome/goblin-titan technology would make the class even more appealing to general audiences.

[Triceron]

Frankly I dont think anyone would care. If anything, I believe that a class revolving around a warframe utilizing hybridized gnome/goblin-titan technology would make the class even more appealing to general audiences.

Well, we agree on one thing then.

Frankly, I don't think anyone would care either.

[Ielenia]

He does he does. He praises them even.

Then show me when he does that.

Yes, outdated then. Of course it doesn't mean they don't borrow things from it, they do all the time.

They were never canon. They were never said to be canon at any point. And even if they once were, they are not, currently. And even the books themselves don't make a distinction in the sense of which one is "better/more knowledgeable". So you pointing at the RPG books to create some false differentiation between "tinker" and "engineer" is just wrong.

[Fetus Rex]

Then show me when he does that.


They were never canon. They were never said to be canon at any point. And even if they once were, they are not, currently. And even the books themselves don't make a distinction in the sense of which one is "better/more knowledgeable". So you pointing at the RPG books to create some false differentiation between "tinker" and "engineer" is just wrong.

In the books. Somewhere.

They were considered such, also, again, Blizzard is heavily using it. There is a clear distinction between engineer and tinker in the game, even in visual depiction.

[Ielenia]

In the books. Somewhere.

Sorry, but that doesn't work.

They were considered such, also, again, Blizzard is heavily using it.

They're not. The books are not canon.

There is a clear distinction between engineer and tinker in the game, even in visual depiction.

Then you will have no problem showing several examples. Where are they?

[Fetus Rex]

Sorry, but that doesn't work.


They're not. The books are not canon.


Then you will have no problem showing several examples. Where are they?

It works perfectly for me.

They are they are.


Yes, wow, hearthstone, wow, hearthstone, wow, hearthstone

[wanax]

Orcs, esspecially mag'har orcs, draenai and blood elves?

Also undead. They’re part of the horde Tinker team

[Ielenia]

It works perfectly for me.

You need to provide the book and the quote.

They are they are.

You are not Blizzard. So you saying the RPG books are canon "for you" is absolutely irrelevant and meaningless to this subject.

Yes, wow,

No examples whatsoever anywhere;

hearthstone,

No examples whatsoever anywhere. Also not canon;

[Fetus Rex]

You need to provide the book and the quote.


You are not Blizzard. So you saying the RPG books are canon "for you" is absolutely irrelevant and meaningless to this subject.


No examples whatsoever anywhere;

No examples whatsoever anywhere. Also not canon;

What for? I'm convinced.

I'm saying they are using them still.

Yes, wow. Might be non canon but still serves its role, to separate professions. There is this notion at Blizzard HQ that Tinkers and engineers are different. So it's like yeah yoh.

[Teriz]

If the argument is that there's no mention of the Tinker in lore, that's false.

Mentions of the Tinker in quests:

https://www.wowhead.com/quest=14124/...e-the-kajamite
https://www.wowhead.com/quest=14383/...ruined-reaches

In addition, Arachnobomb and Bombot 3000 abilities from the Island Expedition teams have the title "Tinker's construct" underneath them, indicating that their users are in fact Tinkers.

https://youtu.be/3N4dtSygpq8?t=490

A little off-topic since HS isn't WoW canon lore, but Dr. Boom was called a Tinker in the recent Hearthstone expansion promo, reinforcing the notion that Tinkers are great Goblin/Gnome inventors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEe7BLVxW2o

[Ielenia]

What for? I'm convinced.

That's your problem. I require actual evidence and not hear-say, especially from someone I don't know about and is making some absurd claims that go against established evidence.

I'm saying they are using them still.

False. Blizzard is not using the RPG books as a source of information for their game. You're making literally a baseless assumption that flies in the face of actual information from the developers when they stated the books as non-canon.

Yes, wow.

The World of Warcraft game has no examples of tinkers being better than engineers or vice-versa. You're literally making shit up.

Might be non canon but still serves its role, to separate professions.

No, they don't. Not only the rpg books do not make the distinction, but the RPG books are useless to determine lore. Either cite some official source or show me in-game examples of one 'type' being better than the other.

There is this notion at Blizzard HQ that Tinkers and engineers are different.

Show me the evidence. Like I said, I don't accept hear-say from people that like to make nonsensical claims.

- - - Updated - - -

If the argument is that there's no mention of the Tinker in lore, that's false.

Mentions of the Tinker in quests:

https://www.wowhead.com/quest=14124/...e-the-kajamite
https://www.wowhead.com/quest=14383/...ruined-reaches

Which is meaningless because those examples don't show any difference between the two terms. For all we know those could just be synonyms, like "mage" and "wizard".

In addition, Arachnobomb and Bombot 3000 abilities from the Island Expedition teams have the title "Tinker's construct" underneath them, indicating that their users are in fact Tinkers.

https://youtu.be/3N4dtSygpq8?t=490

I noticed the "player"s name is not being shown. I don't feel like jumping into island expeditions just to look for them again, but I'm pretty sure the person that made that video named his character "tinker", and player spawned constructs are given the "title" of "<player>'s construct". Do you have any screenshots of how they actually look in the game? Neither show as having any titles in WoWHead, and the site does show NPC titles:

Keep in mind that WoWHead does not show titles such as "<player>'s minion/companion/guardian/etc" in their listing. And the idea that "tinker" is just the "player"s name is further reinforced if you rewind the video and look at the 3:45 mark, the Heal Bot is titled "Tinker's Guardian", and further rewinding the video shows the turret being called "Tinker's minion".

Other than that, it doesn't really mean anything to disprove the idea that "tinker" and "engineer" are not synonyms.

A little off-topic since HS isn't WoW canon lore, but Dr. Boom was called a Tinker in the recent Hearthstone expansion promo, reinforcing the notion that Tinkers are great Goblin/Gnome inventors.

Irrelevant. First because Hearthstone is not canon, and second because what you wrote doesn't mean that.

[Teriz]

Which is meaningless because those examples don't show any difference between the two terms. For all we know those could just be synonyms, like "mage" and "wizard".

Or Mage and Enchanter.

[Ielenia]

Or Mage and Enchanter.

Nice try, but no. The game does show a distinct difference between the two. Enchanting is one of the eight(?) schools of magic.

Enchanter focus on enchants. A mage/wizard go for the other schools as well.

[Teriz]

Nice try, but no. The game does show a distinct difference between the two. Enchanting is one of the eight(?) schools of magic.

Enchanter focus on enchants. A mage/wizard go for the other schools as well.

And the game shows a distinct difference between Mekgineers and Artificers from the standard Engineer title.

Give it time. If the Tinker is the next class, then that distinction will become obvious as well.

[Ielenia]

And the game shows a distinct difference between Mekgineers and Artificers from the standard Engineer title.

There's no distinct difference. Not even a subtle difference. All evidence presented point to the idea they're synonyms. One single example does not a rule make.

Give it time. If the Tinker is the next class, then that distinction will become obvious as well.

Maybe if the tinker is added they'll make that distinction. Right now, it doesn't exist.

[Teriz]

There's no distinct difference. Not even a subtle difference. All evidence presented point to the idea they're synonyms. One single example does not a rule make.

Sure there is. Mekgineers tend to be mech pilots within the Gnomish race. Artificers tend to be the Crystal-based engineers within the Draenei race. I do agree that Blizzard has done a poor job creating distinctions within technology, but clearly distinctions exist. At the very least we have different technology types so there's going to be different types of engineers simply because of that.

[Ielenia]

Sure there is. Mekgineers tend to be mech pilots within the Gnomish race.

Pilots! What, are you going to say that F1 and Nascar pilots are as proficient with science as NASA engineers then?

Artificers tend to be the Crystal-based engineers within the Draenei race.

Which is irrelevant to the point...

I do agree that Blizzard has done a poor job creating distinctions within technology,

Because they likely haven't tried.

but clearly distinctions exist.

They do not. None exist.

[Teriz]

Pilots! What, are you going to say that F1 and Nascar pilots are as proficient with science as NASA engineers then?

Yeah, piloting the mechs that they seemingly built.

Which is irrelevant to the point...

Isn't the point of all of this to discuss the differences within engineering?

Because they likely haven't tried.

I can agree with that.

They do not. None exist.

Then why does the engineering profession only cover a derivative of Gnome and Goblin technology? Where's the Nightborne, Black Iron, Naaru/Draenei/Lightforged, Arrakkoan, Legion, or Titan tech? Again, there's clearly different schools of engineering in WoW.

[Ielenia]

Yeah, piloting the mechs that they seemingly built.

Evidence that they built it? Where is it?

Isn't the point of all of this to discuss the differences within engineering?

No. The point is about the claim about the difference of "knowledge" between 'tinker' and 'engineer'.

Then why does the engineering profession only cover a derivative of Gnome and Goblin technology? Where's the Nightborne, Naaru/Draenei/Lightforged, Arrakkoan, Legion, or Titan tech? Again, there's clearly different schools of engineering in WoW.

That's completely irrelevant because none of the "tinkers" in the game use "nightborne, naaru/draenei/lightforged, arakkoan, legion or titan tech".

You talk a lot about Helix "understanding Titan technology", but all we ever heard of him doing something even remotely close was re-purposing some Titan tech. "Re-purposing" does not mean "completely understanding Titan tech". And all he did with it was creating the shielding that protects the Spoils of Pandaria in Siege of Orgrimmar.