Do you want tinkers?

[Teriz]

What do NPCs have to do with Playable Classes? I don't see the relevance.

Expansion classes are tied to major lore figures, and Blizzard has used WC3 and HotS to base abilities for those new classes. Gazlowe obtaining HotS Tinker abilities in WoW is a huge step towards a possible Tinker class inclusion. I dont see a situation like that for the other class concepts you mentioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine.

If you wish to be so pedantic, then so be it. Remove the "destroying buildings" part. We still get a concept that seems way more advanced than a shredder: "A mech designed to be in the front lines of combat, and still be able to be compacted in a backpack is, technically, more advanced and powerful than a mech designed to just cut lumber."

But we know that Goblins can put entire towns inside a box, so obviously they have the tech to put a mech into a backpack right? Since we know that Goblins can put towns into boxes, what stops a Tinker from simply having a backpack to carry his or her mech in? That could in fact help explain where the mech goes when the Tinker isnt in combat mode.

Essentially all the pieces are in place, just some minor details have been altered to make the concept more acceptable to a wider audience.

[Malikath]

yes, and rune-masters, and necromancers, and blood mages, and dark rangers, and the classes/specs restored to their proper condition at the highest point of the development.
because WoW is a product that services a demand with a supply to make profit and accrue value as a brand, said value being the actual motive of a business.
so it should never be a "which" question, but an "all-of-them" answer.

[GrimReaper673]

My deepest hope is that Blizzard learned their lesson from making an April Fool's joke into an actual race. They know now that they overestimated the popularity of Pandaren, and hopefully they will remember it before even entertaining creating a class centered around the themes of another joke race.

[Triceron]

Expansion classes are tied to major lore figures, and Blizzard has used WC3 and HotS to base abilities for those new classes. Gazlowe obtaining HotS Tinker abilities in WoW is a huge step towards a possible Tinker class inclusion. I dont see a situation like that for the other class concepts you mentioned.

You didn't see Sylvanas using her banshee abilities to fly around the place? It's been shown in both the BFA cinematic and in the Battle of Lordaeron conclusion. She was never shown being able to do that in Legion, and that ability looks very much inspired by Haunting Wave's teleport mechanic.

[Dch48]

We don't need any new classes to screw balance up even more than it is.

[Teriz]

You didn't see Sylvanas using her banshee abilities to fly around the place? It's been shown in both the BFA cinematic and in the Battle of Lordaeron conclusion. She was never shown being able to do that in Legion, and that ability looks very much inspired by Haunting Wave's teleport mechanic.

Well that's the thing; Her Banshee abilities both lorewise and gameplay wise appear to be exclusive to her and her alone. None of her Dark Ranger lieutenants (including Nathanos) have them, nor do the Night Elf Dark Rangers she raised.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

You liking something doesnt mean jack shit. These elements dont belong in a high fantasy setting. This is a discussion and not a whine so dont be offended little crybaby.

I hate to break it to you, cupcake, but that feeble and pathetic attempt to counter what I said is exactly that: Feeble and pathetic.

You're just flat-out wrong. Blizzard created the setting. They chose to incorporate these elements. No matter how much you wanna pound on the ground crying, your opinion on the subject means fuck-all. It's their setting, they're in 100% control of what goes into it, and 100% in control of what they think fits or doesn't fit. It's a part of the setting, and the game.

Deal with it or find something else to waste your time/money on. No one will care either way. Again: Your opinion literally means nothing. It's absolutely worthless; reality has no bearing on it, and nothing will change because of what you erroneously believe "should" be in or out of the setting.

[Ielenia]

But we know that Goblins can put entire towns inside a box, so obviously they have the tech to put a mech into a backpack right? Since we know that Goblins can put towns into boxes, what stops a Tinker from simply having a backpack to carry his or her mech in? That could in fact help explain where the mech goes when the Tinker isnt in combat mode.

Essentially all the pieces are in place, just some minor details have been altered to make the concept more acceptable to a wider audience.

Except one important thing: putting things back in the box.

To make matters worse, we don't know the process of "putting things in the box" in the first place. For all we know, it requires a big machine to miniaturize whatever goes into the box, and if that's the case, it'd defeat the purpose of using that technology.

[Triceron]

Well that's the thing; Her Banshee abilities both lorewise and gameplay wise appear to be exclusive to her and her alone. None of her Dark Ranger lieutenants (including Nathanos) have them, nor do the Night Elf Dark Rangers she raised.

Probably not, because those abilities would probably be reserved for a player class. Kinda like we never saw Demon Hunters with Illidan's HOTS abilities either.

[Teriz]

Kinda curious that no other NPC has Gazlowe's abilities from HOTS either then eh?

Actually the HotS abilities are spread out among the members of the Island Expedition teams and on both factions.

Nice edit btw;

Probably not, because those abilities would probably be reserved for a player class. Kinda like we never saw Demon Hunters with Illidan's HOTS abilities either.

No, but we saw them with Illidan's WC3 abilities. Keep in mind, we didn't see many Demon Hunters in WoW after TBC, and TBC predates HotS.

- - - Updated - - -

Except one important thing: putting things back in the box.

To make matters worse, we don't know the process of "putting things in the box" in the first place. For all we know, it requires a big machine to miniaturize whatever goes into the box, and if that's the case, it'd defeat the purpose of using that technology.

I think the fact that this absurd concept exists in the game in the first place kind of outweighs the concerns you're mentioning here.

I mean, they even have City in a Box and Landing Strip in a Box, and you're trying to apply something as trivial as the power source that makes this all possible? I really don't think that matters once we've gotten to the point where Goblins can carry around entire cities (with people presumably inside those buildings) inside small little boxes.

[Triceron]

Actually the HotS abilities are spread out among the members of the Island Expedition teams and on both factions.

As NPCs we kill, right?

So far Player Classes like Death Knights, Monks and Demon Hunters have new abilities that aren't taken from NPCs. It's probably the best that those abilities be on NPCs, so that the Tinker class has room for new abilities.

[Teriz]

As NPCs we kill, right?

So far Player Classes like Death Knights, Monks and Demon Hunters have new abilities that aren't taken from NPCs. It's probably the best that those abilities be on NPCs, so that the Tinker class has room for new abilities.

But all three have abilities that have come from their respective WC3 and HotS incarnations. Thats the point.

Also I don't think you really kill the Island Expedition guys. Gazlowe's Greasemonkeys for example pop up again in Mechagon.

[Exkrementor]

I hate to break it to you, cupcake, but that feeble and pathetic attempt to counter what I said is exactly that: Feeble and pathetic.

You're just flat-out wrong. Blizzard created the setting. They chose to incorporate these elements. No matter how much you wanna pound on the ground crying, your opinion on the subject means fuck-all. It's their setting, they're in 100% control of what goes into it, and 100% in control of what they think fits or doesn't fit. It's a part of the setting, and the game.

Deal with it or find something else to waste your time/money on. No one will care either way. Again: Your opinion literally means nothing. It's absolutely worthless; reality has no bearing on it, and nothing will change because of what you erroneously believe "should" be in or out of the setting.

I hate to break it to you, but your opinion on this subject means fuck-all. Again: Your opinion literally means nothing. It's absolutely worthless; reality has no bearing on it, and nothing will change because of what you erroneously believe "should" be in or out of the setting.


Maybe you should read your crap before you send it mate. I can literally destroy you with copy and paste.

Btw: Why are you so angry because somebody has a different opinion? Are you a lefty?

[DotEleven]

Canon only means what is officially seen in the fictional story/universe. Other instances of it appearing in other games don't apply, and like I said, canon doesn't fucking matter to any new class so I don't know why you guys need to try to make it sound like Blizzard HAS to officially recognize it in the story.

Canon is JUST the story, so unless you care about having claw packs appear officially right now, theres no reason to even care about canon. Just like information on Anduins blood type or what Jainas fave food is, there is no canon for that either and it don't matter at all

Ielenia's point is useless, and honestly I don't understand why you even want to get baited on his argument about Tinkers in the Story. Like I explained, even Death Knights and Demon Hunters in WOW are a new breed and not to the WC3 ones

Canon is the story and the world around it. Just because it's not a part of the story doesn't mean it's not part of Warcraft. We could take Harry Potter for example. Do you know of a creature called an Augurey? There isn't a single mention of them in the actual storyline. You can read books 1-7 and never hear of them. But they exist in the canon. They exist in the lore. Much like the Tinker. Yes, it isn't strictly part of WoW, but the claw backpack is in pretty much everything surrounding it. Like, I'm 90% sure the only reason they haven't put the claw backpack into WoW is that yes, Tinkers aren't a huge part of WoW right now and who wants to put resources into that when they can just have tinkers in a shredder with a model that's already there.

[Ielenia]

I think the fact that this absurd concept exists in the game in the first place kind of outweighs the concerns you're mentioning here.

Actually, it's the other way around. The fact such absurd concept exists in the game in the first place warrants the concerns I'm voicing.

I mean, they even have City in a Box and Landing Strip in a Box, and you're trying to apply something as trivial as the power source that makes this all possible?

Who said anything about "power source"? I specifically said machine.

I really don't think that matters once we've gotten to the point where Goblins can carry around entire cities (with people presumably inside those buildings) inside small little boxes.

I think it does, since "suspension of disbelief" only goes so far.

- - - Updated - - -

Canon is the story and the world around it. Just because it's not a part of the story doesn't mean it's not part of Warcraft.

Yes. Yes, it does mean exactly that: if it's not shown to be part of the story, then it's not part of Warcraft. Because that's what Warcraft is: a story. A story being told through a game and supplement media like books and comics, but a story nonetheless.

We could take Harry Potter for example. Do you know of a creature called an Augurey? There isn't a single mention of them in the actual storyline. You can read books 1-7 and never hear of them. But they exist in the canon. They exist in the lore. Much like the Tinker.

Actually... Augurey have been shown to be part of the lore. The tinker, however... has not.

[Teriz]

Actually, it's the other way around. The fact such absurd concept exists in the game in the first place warrants the concerns I'm voicing.

Not really. Your concerns sound nit picky and irrelevant at best. I mean once we've established that Goblins can put entire cities inside boxes, the idea that putting a mech in backpack seems "too advanced" is a silly argument.

[Ielenia]

Not really. Your concerns sound nit picky and irrelevant at best.

It's not "nit-picky" to ask how something that sounds ludicrous in concept works.

I mean once we've established that Goblins can put entire cities inside boxes, the idea that putting a mech in backpack seems "too advanced" is a silly argument.

Who said anything about "too advanced"? I simply pointed out that the concept of a "backpack" that can turn into a combat-ready mech is more advanced than a mech designed to cut lumber. Plain and simple.

[Triceron]

Canon is the story and the world around it. Just because it's not a part of the story doesn't mean it's not part of Warcraft.

But you need to consider what Ielenia was talking about.

He didn't say it's not 'a part of Warcraft'. He was specific about 'It is not part of WoW canon', and that's all he was talking about. So the more you fight it the more he'd say it's not canon (and frankly, what I'm doing here). Because it's tecnically not canon. It doesn't mean it's not a part of Warcraft though, because it totally is. It's just not confirmed as official-and-current in the story.

If you want to refer to canon, you have to be specifically talking about OFFICIALLY SOURCED material. And frankly a lot of what happens in WC3, while canon, still fits this wavy concept.

I mean let's take this back to the original topic - Tinkers. So are Tinkers canon in WoW? YES they are! But they are not the same Tinkers of WC3.

We have Dark Rangers from WC3 officially appear in WoW. Dark Ranger Anya is Anya Eversong. Dark Ranger Clea, Dark Ranger Cyndia. They appear in WoW, and thus are canonized. Firelords also happen to be canonical; we see Hatespark and Blazefury in the Molten Front. So yes, they canonically appear in WoW and in the story, and we can say that their origins are sourced from WC3 even if their first canonical appearance happens to be in WoW.

Yet there are no WC3 Tinkers in any campaign or any WoW/official material. No Gazz Stripbolt, no Riket Contraption, no Mekka Gobb, no Ratso Steamwheedle; EVEN when the Steamwheedle cartel exists. Those characters are not canonized. Also, Gazlowe was not canonically a WC3 Tinker; he was specifically represented by Goblin Sappers unit. So that's what Ielenia is talking about.

We could take Harry Potter for example. Do you know of a creature called an Augurey? There isn't a single mention of them in the actual storyline. You can read books 1-7 and never hear of them. But they exist in the canon. They exist in the lore. Much like the Tinker. Yes, it isn't strictly part of WoW, but the claw backpack is in pretty much everything surrounding it. Like, I'm 90% sure the only reason they haven't put the claw backpack into WoW is that yes, Tinkers aren't a huge part of WoW right now and who wants to put resources into that when they can just have tinkers in a shredder with a model that's already there.

Yes but Augurey comes from an official source pertaining to the HP world. It's canonized.

Claw backpack isn't canonized. It appears nowhere in WC3 lore. It only appears in NON-CANON WC3 game mechanics; multiplayer only! So we are specifically taking something non-canon and discussing it.

Augurey is canon. So are the other Wizard schools around the world. Claw Packs do not appear anywhere in actual official story or lore.

Canon is not a scale. It's a binary definition for Official material. If it's 90% connected to official material but not really shown or explained, then it's still not canon. And just appearing in the WC3 Campaign isn't means of canon either, there is also context involved. We may have known of Pandarens since WC3, but outside of an empty keg homage in the Barrens, they would not be canonized until Mists of Pandaria. Does it matter that between Vanilla up to the end of Cataclysm Pandarens were not considered Canon? Not really. It's not even worth arguing about. They simply weren't canon, but now they are, and we all moved on. Canon isn't a set of rules, it's just a word for Current and Official fiction.

Besides, what is the matter with the claw pack NOT being canon? Does it even matter? We both know it doesn't stop it from appearing in WoW, and honestly there is nothing to prove by MAKING it canon anyways. Even if it appeared on an NPC in WoW, it doesn't mean Tinkers are any MORE or LESS plausible. We've had Demon Hunter NPCs in the game since TBC and people would still argue that they'll never be in the game, or that they won't have blindfolds and warglaives and used any means to discredit them. And those people were assessing things wrong.

[DotEleven]

But you need to consider what Ielenia was talking about.

He didn't say it's not 'a part of Warcraft'. He was specific about 'It is not part of WoW canon', and that's all he was talking about. So the more you fight it the more he'd say it's not canon (and frankly, what I'm doing here). Because it's tecnically not canon. It doesn't mean it's not a part of Warcraft though, because it totally is. It's just not confirmed as official-and-current in the story.

If you want to refer to canon, you have to be specifically talking about OFFICIALLY SOURCED material. And frankly a lot of what happens in WC3, while canon, still fits this wavy concept.

I mean let's take this back to the original topic - Tinkers. So are Tinkers canon in WoW? YES they are! But they are not the same Tinkers of WC3.

We have Dark Rangers from WC3 officially appear in WoW. Dark Ranger Anya is Anya Eversong. Dark Ranger Clea, Dark Ranger Cyndia. They appear in WoW, and thus are canonized. Firelords also happen to be canonical; we see Hatespark and Blazefury in the Molten Front. So yes, they canonically appear in WoW and in the story, and we can say that their origins are sourced from WC3 even if their first canonical appearance happens to be in WoW.

Yet there are no WC3 Tinkers in any campaign or any WoW/official material. No Gazz Stripbolt, no Riket Contraption, no Mekka Gobb, no Ratso Steamwheedle; EVEN when the Steamwheedle cartel exists. Those characters are not canonized. Also, Gazlowe was not canonically a WC3 Tinker; he was specifically represented by Goblin Sappers unit. So that's what Ielenia is talking about.



Yes but Augurey comes from an official source pertaining to the HP world. It's canonized.

Claw backpack isn't canonized. It appears nowhere in WC3 lore. It only appears in NON-CANON WC3 game mechanics; multiplayer only! So we are specifically taking something non-canon and discussing it.

Augurey is canon. So are the other Wizard schools around the world. Claw Packs do not appear anywhere in actual official story or lore.

Canon is not a scale. It's a binary definition for Official material. If it's 90% connected to official material but not really shown or explained, then it's still not canon. And just appearing in the WC3 Campaign isn't means of canon either, there is also context involved. There's a Hydralisk easter egg in some missions, but it doesn't mean Hydralisks are canonical to the Warcraft universe, right?

Once again, neither do Alchemists. They don't appear in the WC3 campaign. They are in the very same circumstances. And yet he's willing to admit Alchemists exist, but can't admit that the tinker does.

And as for official sources. That tinker comes from WC3. Yes, it wasn't in the campaign, but it's part of the game. And not as a "we added this only to customized maps" no, it's a unit you can use in the game itself that BLIZZARD created. It's not like I'm out here saying "Phantom Lancer is a part of the Warcraft universe" because that wasn't created by Blizzard. This is. Just like the Founding of Durotar which also ISN'T part of the Warcraft 3 storyline itself but a CUSTOM GAME MODE Bonus created by Blizzard.

I'm not saying that everything that happens in WC3 is canon. But WC3 itself is canon and so is whatever Blizzard made in it. Which includes Tinkers and yes, the claw backpack.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

I hate to break it to you, but your opinion on this subject means fuck-all.

I haven't shared an opinion. The fact that you can't even grasp that simple fact says so much about you.

You're wrong. Period. There's nothing to suggest. It's not subjective in the slightest. Steampunk elements are a part of the Warcraft universe, and have been for a very, very long time. And judging by your reasoning skills, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it's been the case longer than you've been alive. Your opinion about whether or not it should be means absolutely fuck-all. Just like you can be talking to a brick wall telling it you don't think bricks are real and mortar shouldn't be a part of its construction even if bricks were real. It's that fucking stupid.

Also, you're the angry one here. And only getting angrier the more people tell you how painfully and embarrasingly wrong you are on the subject.