A time skip in 10.0 would make Tinkers possible.

[Elestia]

The day the Tinkerer fan boys get their class is the day I hard quit the game.

[Shiza]

The day the Tinkerer fan boys get their class is the day I hard quit the game.

I still think Dark Rangers are more likely. They have the character to back the fantasy up and engage hype, the Tinkers have no such popular characters.

[Syegfryed]

So you're saying Siegecrafter Blackfuse is not a tinker, but an "archaeo-tinkologist", since he worked with Titan tech?

you are not even trying, are you?

WoWPedia is headcanon, now?

the wowpedia who said the tinkers are goblins, gnomes, a dwarf and the demon race?

"Big" and "large" are synonyms. And also: learn what "context" means. But either way, you're wrong. Because "nearly the same thing" means that the differences are basically negligible.

ah now context matters, just cause we already proved that synonyms are not the exact same shit like you tried to imply here

What you're trying to do, here, is akin to saying that a brain surgeon is "nearly the same thing" as a veterinarian. That an archaeologist is "nearly the same thing" as a civil engineer

no its, again, you are projecting, try to stick with the things said isntead of the things you imagine

Really. Objective examples that the list is incomplete...

the list isn't incomplete, not citing all goblins and gnomes is not necessary when they already state the goblins and gnomes are tinkers

And I showed that the wiki list is incomplete.

By the way, if anyone were to edit that wiki page and add the night elf and human from the Alliance Mechagon cinematic, would you accept them as tinkers?

why they would do that, since its wrong? they would edit removing then

"Therefore" nothing because none of that proves anything. Just because you don't see them doing any of that, doesn't mean that they don't do that, or are incapable of that. Besides, engineers "use mechas, tools, bombs, weapons and other tinker stuff".

since they do any shit tinkers do, you can't say for certain, thinking its a fact that they are tinkers, a merely synoyms is not nearly enough "canon evidence to proof night elves are tinker" so just stop

And none of that proves that they are his. I only pointed out the possibility that is just as likely that those concubines could belong to the blood elf council. Especially since, to my recollection, there are no night elf women within said harem.

pointed a "posbility" based on nothing, just in your headcanon

You were the one who brought the concubines into the conversation as an attempt to show that Illidan is not a xenophobe/racist:

because that was the truth, he was not show to be a "xenophobe racist that only cared about elves"

No. No, it really did not, because Illidan was never portrayed as one to "seek the pleasures of the flesh" or anything of the sort other than being in love with Tyrande.

"and in nowhere is potrayed illidan taking a shit, so illidan never defecate in his life", your kind of logic is becoming even more funny

You've yet to prove that they cannot do "tinker stuff".

if they can and cannot is not the point here, we will never know, because they are dead, they were not called tinkers and they did not show up doing any tinker stuff like we see the other tinkers doing it.

When they show up in the mechasuits, blasting shit up, doing tinker shenanigans, then i agree with you, cause that is what makes a tinker class.

Synonyms mean the same thing. THAT is a fact.

not always, as we already stated in the definition of the word, stop lying to yourself.

[cuafpr]

They will probably happen at some point... however I don't think one gets a perma mech form.. probably a cooldown ability for tanks/dps specifically.

[cocomen2]

I gonna believe that "The Tinker is coming" only if Blizzard would do CGI model for gnome in their cinematic.

Never saw any gnome in cinematics in 15 years....

Maybe gnomes its just imagination creature in minds of Azerothians

[Ielenia]

you are not even trying, are you?

Are you going to deny that Siegecrafter Blackfuse worked with titan tech? You said tinkers don't work with Titan technology:

one work on titan stuff the other don't, do you need that painted somwhere?

the wowpedia who said the tinkers are goblins, gnomes, a dwarf and the demon race?

The WoWPedia article has never said those are the ONLY tinkers, and the list has been proven to be incomplete.

no its, again, you are projecting, try to stick with the things said isntead of the things you imagine

You are the one saying that an archaeologist is "nearly the same thing" as an engineer.

why they would do that, since its wrong? they would edit removing then

Says who? You?

since they do any shit tinkers do, you can't say for certain, thinking its a fact that they are tinkers

I can because they're referred to as a synonym to the word 'tinker'. If you want to claim otherwise, then you need to show conclusive proof that they're not the same thing.

pointed a "posbility" based on nothing, just in your headcanon

And your claim that those concubines are Illidan's is just as much your headcanon. But you'll never admit to that because it goes against your narrative.

because that was the truth, he was not show to be a "xenophobe racist that only cared about elves"

You have not shown it to be truth. Your presented a piece of evidence, and I'm examining what you presented, and anyone without an agenda like you would say that your evidence is lacking since nowhere it's said they are Illidan's harem.

This basically your argument: "The victim was killed within this apartment building, in the corridor of the fourth floor. The man who owns the building has a gun. Therefore he was the one who killed the victim." or even "This jacket was found within the hotel. The hotel owner can wear jackets, so the jacket obviously belongs to him."

"and in nowhere is potrayed illidan taking a shit, so illidan never defecate in his life", your kind of logic is becoming even more funny

No, that is not my logic, because, again, unlike you, I am not making a claim of fact. You are. Not to mention that the comparison completely fails because we're talking about ownership. You say the concubines are Illidan's simply because they are within his temple, but the logic fails when we realize that Illidan is not the only one within the temple and that we have a group within said temple that is much more likely to partake in "concubines" than Illidan, someone who was never portrayed to be interested in these kinds of pleasures.

if they can and cannot is not the point here,

It's the whole point! Because that is what you're doing, here! You're saying they're not tinkers "because they're never shown to do 'tinker stuff'".

not always, as we already stated in the definition of the word, stop lying to yourself.

And yet, despite your claims, you've so far failed to present even a single example of two synonyms not being the same thing, or even being "nearly" the same thing.

[Teriz]

They will probably happen at some point... however I don't think one gets a perma mech form.. probably a cooldown ability for tanks/dps specifically.

Thing is, Tinkers have had permanent mech forms in all of their appearances, including in WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

I gonna believe that "The Tinker is coming" only if Blizzard would do CGI model for gnome in their cinematic.

Never saw any gnome in cinematics in 15 years....

Goblins either.

So its long overdue.

- - - Updated - - -

... So you're saying you believe the original WoW classes were not designed around thee theme of the game and lore characters within the game?

Not to the level that the expansion classes were. Additionally there were classic classes that weren't based on any lore characters. Rogues and Priests immediately come to mind.

And you're going to say you cannot see more of the character's head and front from the angles #2 and #3 than you can with #1? Really?

Not enough to say that that is anything but the back view.

I wouldn't call "little more than a third" to be "most of the class' core". And no. No, the other Scourge units did not "share the DK theme". Not anymore than the "high elf sorceress" shared the "paladin" theme. Not any more than the "dwarven mortar team" shared the "Mountain King" theme. Not any more than the "orc shaman" shared the "blademaster" theme. Not any more than the "dryad" shared the "demon hunter" theme.

Uh, the scourge units were all based around the undead and necromancy, and yes the DK class encapsulated that entire theme.

The reasons why they happened are irrelevant

Uh, no they aren't.

And they won't be inventors. They'll be following the teachings, i.e. schematics, passed to them by their mentors.

I didn't know you worked for Blizzard.

Wrong. "Tech classes" do not invent. Notable NPCS like Mekatorque, Jaina, etc, invent. The tech class will not be based on "inventions" because player classes don't invent anything. Our characters' abilities are taught to them by their mentors and trainers. It has been since the dawn of the game, and the fact the game no longer reflects that is just a concession to smooth out gameplay, just like fact our characters don't have to regularly eat and drink regularly to sate hunger and thirst, sleep, take a break, or even have to go take a piss or shit regularly.

As I've said before, there's several abilities we learn without ever encountering a trainer. The starter ability is a huge one. Talent-based abilities were another. So since our characters can spontaneously learn abilities, there's nothing "game-breaking" about a Tinker learning skills without any outside influence.

And you want to know a lore reason for that? Our characters spend their lives adventuring, not stuffed in a laboratory their entire lives to actually be able to "invent" anything.

Well the lore of the Tinker is that they can invent stuff from scraps in the field, so that's not a problem;

Tinkers (aka tinkerers) are among the smartest of the adventurers setting out to explore and conquer Azeroth. The creators of incredible inventions, from crazy multipurpose knives to steam saws to siege engines, their devices allow them to overcome nearly any situation — and if they don't have the device they need, they just might be able to design and create a new one on the spot.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Tinker

[Syegfryed]

Are you going to deny that Siegecrafter Blackfuse worked with titan tech? You said tinkers don't work with Titan technology:

you want to compare a true tinker that also worked with titan stuff, with a guy who just worked on titan stuff and want to claim they are the same, despite not a single evidence, thats the clearly example of confirmation bias right here

The WoWPedia article has never said those are the ONLY tinkers, and the list has been proven to be incomplete.

if others tinkers existed, it would be there, because the wiki is updated, the list had not been proven to be incomplete

You are the one saying that an archaeologist is "nearly the same thing" as an engineer.

because tinkologist is also a snynomym to engineer, you want to ignore that sure, but they are more akin to the engineer than the tinker with all the evidence we have

Says who? You?

the evidences? LUL

I can because they're referred to as a synonym to the word 'tinker'. If you want to claim otherwise, then you need to show conclusive proof that they're not the same thing.

And since its already being stated that synonyms don't mean the exactly same shit, and tinkologist is also a engineer syonyms(now i wait until you came here to say they are not the engineers because snynoms are not always the exact same thing, trying to flip the comment) you are wrong all along, until more data is added here, further proving they are tinkers, doing tinker stuff, we cannot say they are tinkers, a single name who is not the exact right term means jackshit here

This basically your argument: "The victim was killed within this apartment building, in the corridor of the fourth floor. The man who owns the building has a gun. Therefore he was the one who killed the victim." or even "This jacket was found within the hotel. The hotel owner can wear jackets, so the jacket obviously belongs to him."

ah yes, the false analogy classic.

No, that is not my logic, because, again, [B]unlike you, I am not making a claim of fact.

you are always trying this tactic, always saying "others are claiming facts" and "im not claiming so i don't have to proof, but have to, if you can't prove what i said is false therefore is truth"

you are claiming yes, if you don't, don't bring that shit up

It's the whole point! Because that is what you're doing, here! You're saying they're not tinkers "because they're never shown to do 'tinker stuff'".

they are not being show doing any tinker stuff, and they are not goblins or gnomes, therefore, you can't say as a fact they are tinkers, like you have being trying to do the entire topic

And yet, despite your claims, you've so far failed to present even a single example of two synonyms not being the same thing, or even being "nearly" the same thing.

i just did, pages ago, but you were just busy cherry-picking

good is a synonyms of excellent, but they don't mean the exactly same shit always.

Just like hot and boiling, cold and freezing, bad and awful and many other examples

[Triceron]

No, that is not my logic, because, again, [B]unlike you, I am not making a claim of fact.

When it comes to class discussion, if you try and bring lore into it then you're just not discussing classes, you're just arguing lore. You can't have any class discussion if you talk about lore, because lore does not work that way. What class would you like added in the game? No matter what class you say, it will be impossible to be argued as playable because the lore does not support them being playable. An example is that there's no Bards in lore, therefore there will never be a Bard class. If you say 'Well there are bards in the lore and in the game!' then it can be dismissed because none of the NPCs in the game are listed as 'Bard', and are just singers.

If you say 'Well Bards could be canon though' then we could just as easily dismiss that notion because based on lore, that is not a fact, and the over-riding logic of Lore > Headcanon means no Bards, ever.

If we really stick to lore, then there will never be any more new playable classes. Any class concept you can think of will be dismissed on the fact that there is no lore supporting that they are playable. What if they *could* become playable? Well that lore doesn't exist, so there's no precedent for them being playable, right? No Witchdoctors, no Wardens, no Bards, no Dark Rangers, nothing. There is zero lore supporting any class being playable other than the ones we have right now. Even Necromancers can be completely dismissed because there is no lore indicating that they are anything but enemies. What about that one good Necromancer dude who is friendly to us? Well is he playable? Does he lead a faction of friendly Necromancers that will join the Alliance and Horde in the lore? No? Then that's 'headcanon'.

And that's the logic you've been using against Tinkers, really. It's a logic that doesn't allow any new class to exist. None.

I mean, really. Try it. Tell me what class you'd like to see playable in the game, and I can use your own lore-based logic to shut you down. Anything you say I will deem as headcanon, because like I said, there's no lore supporting any other class that isn't already playable.

[Ielenia]

There are no claim of facts when it comes to any discussion of a class that doesn't exist. All you can discuss are parameters which would allow said class to exist. There is no proof that can be used to argue against the existence of said class, since you can't prove a negative.

The quote you're responding from comes from a discussion from where Syegfryed claims that the concubines we meet in the Black Temple shortly before the Mother Shahraz boss are Illidan's concubines solely by wrong leap of logic that "they are on the temple therefore they're his and no one else's", and I am just pointing out that his claim is not the sole explanation, that those concubines could belong, for example, to the blood elves of the Illidari Council. Both explanations are just as likely with what little evidence there is, none of them being conclusive.

When it comes to class discussion, if you try and bring lore into it then you're just not discussing classes, you're just arguing lore. You can't have any class discussion if you talk about lore, because lore does not work that way.

I think there is room for lore discussion in a class fan concept discussion, as lore is what informs the races that you will be able to pick for said class, for example.

What class would you like added in the game? No matter what class you say, it will be impossible to be argued as playable because the lore does not support them being playable. An example is that there's no Bards in lore, therefore there will never be a Bard class. If you say 'Well there are bards in the lore and in the game!' then it can be dismissed because none of the NPCs in the game are listed as 'Bard', and are just singers.

The bard is wholly off-topic, so I'll keep it brief: there are characters tagged as 'bard', and Russell Brower, while not name-tagged as a bard, calls himself a 'bard' in his quest text.

If we really stick to lore, then there will never be any more new playable classes. Any class concept you can think of will be dismissed on the fact that there is no lore supporting that they are playable. What if they *could* become playable? Well that lore doesn't exist, so there's no precedent for them being playable, right? No Witchdoctors, no Wardens, no Bards, no Dark Rangers, nothing. There is zero lore supporting any class being playable other than the ones we have right now.

And that's the logic you've been using against Tinkers, really.

I'm going to assume you haven't been reading my posts. I'm not arguing against the creation of a tech class. Never argued, not even once in this thread, that a tech class cannot happen in WoW. At worst, you'll find me arguing that Teriz' idealized version of the class concept is not going to happen. Can a tech-based class happen in WoW? Sure. But Teriz's version (i.e.: gnome/goblin exclusive, mech-riding, highly customizable, different graphics for everything in the class being different between gnomes and goblins, etc), that one I firmly believe is impossible to happen. Mostly the "gnome/goblin exclusive", but yes.

- - - Updated - - -

you want to compare a true tinker that also worked with titan stuff, with a guy who just worked on titan stuff and want to claim they are the same, despite not a single evidence, thats the clearly example of confirmation bias right here

We have an in-lore cinematic as evidence.

if others tinkers existed, it would be there, because the wiki is updated, the list had not been proven to be incomplete

I have proven that it is incomplete, by citing examples:

So you're going to completely ignore the fact it says "MOSTLY represented" and also completely ignore the fact that the list is not a complete list? For example: it lacks Pascal-K1N6, Fizzy Tinkerbow, Alan Greasehops, and likely others.

because tinkologist is also a snynomym to engineer, you want to ignore that sure,

And "tinker" is also synonymous with "engineer" too, by proxy, and the reason I "ignored" that was because this fact hurts your case much more than mine, on top of being immaterial to the discussion for being an actual "red herring".

the evidences? LUL

Which, again, do not exist.

And since its already being stated that synonyms don't mean the exactly same shit,

Wrong. That's literally what synonyms are: same thing. You haven't shown even a single example of two synonyms that do not mean "the same thing".

you are wrong all along, until more data is added here, further proving they are tinkers, doing tinker stuff, we cannot say they are tinkers, a single name who is not the exact right term means jackshit here

A single name is exactly all we need to assume they are what they are called as. If you want to say they are not what they are called as, it's your burden to prove they are not, and simply saying "we don't see them doing tinker shit" is not evidence of anything.

ah yes, the false analogy classic.

It's not false. It's literally what you're doing: "it's in his building, therefore it's his."

you are always trying this tactic, always saying "others are claiming facts" and "im not claiming so i don't have to proof, but have to, if you can't prove what i said is false therefore is truth"

you are claiming yes, if you don't, don't bring that shit up

I never said that. I never said what I wrote is "fact". You are the one making claims of fact, therefore you have to prove them. All I'm doing is offering an equally possible alternative that could be true as well.

This is you and your argument:
There is a coin on the ground, but it's too far away to know which side is up.
You: "The head side is facing up!"
Me: "How can you be so sure? We can't see which side is up. It could just as easily be the tails side up."
You: "No! The head side is facing up!"
Me: "But how do you know it's the head side specifically that it's up on that coin over there?"

And your best response so far has been akin to "because when people call 'head or tails' they always say the word 'head' first."

they are not being show doing any tinker stuff,

Irrelevant. Again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you trying to take credit for "teaching" me that only makes you look bad, as you engage in that fallacy here.

and they are not goblins or gnomes,

Irrelevant, as gnomes and goblins (and dwarves) are not the only Azerothians that can work with high-end technology.

therefore, you can't say as a fact they are tinkers, like you have being trying to do the entire topic

I can, because they're called as such. By a synonym, but still.

good is a synonyms of excellent, but they don't mean the exactly same shit always.

Show me an example of them not being "the same shit".

- - - Updated - - -

Not to the level that the expansion classes were.

Again: prove it.

Additionally there were classic classes that weren't based on any lore characters. Rogues and Priests immediately come to mind.

For rogues, we have Garona. Priests seem to be the exception. However, I'll go one step further: player classes are not based, at all, on lore characters, but on concepts: the 'death knight' concept, the 'paladin' concept, the 'mage' concept, the 'rogue' concept, the 'monk' concept.

Not enough to say that that is anything but the back view.

Cameras #2 and #3 allow us to see the pilot.

Uh, the scourge units were all based around the undead and necromancy, and yes the DK class encapsulated that entire theme.

And the 'Human' units encompass righteousness and

Uh, no they aren't.

Yes, they are, because I didn't ask why they happened. Pointing out the reasons why those models were broken is irrelevant because they change in nothing the fact that they did happen. Also, funny how you didn't give a single reason why they're not irrelevant. You literally just hand-waved it while I explained why.

I didn't know you worked for Blizzard.

I'm going by what the game shows me: players learn their class skills from their mentors.

As I've said before, there's several abilities we learn without ever encountering a trainer.

The starter abilities can be explained by:
• Having learned from their parents;
• Having learned from a previous trainer;
• Having learned from a book.
Talent-based abilities can be explained by it being a concession to smooth out the gameplay experience.

So since our characters can spontaneously learn abilities, there's nothing "game-breaking" about a Tinker learning skills without any outside influence.

Wrong. You're taking gameplay features and using them as lore.

Well the lore of the Tinker is that they can invent stuff from scraps in the field, so that's not a problem;


https://wow.gamepedia.com/Tinker

Sometimes you make this so god damn easy. Click for bigger:

[Syegfryed]

We have an in-lore cinematic as evidence.

that is not an evidence to proof as canon fact, don't try to pass that like it is

I have proven that it is incomplete, by citing examples:

they are both goblins and gnomes, both already stated in the wiki, they do not need to name every single one of then if they already flat out enter in the general description, that is not an incomplete list, and does not count the night elves and humans

And "tinker" is also synonymous with "engineer" too, by proxy, and the reason I "ignored" that was because this fact hurts your case much more than mine, on top of being immaterial to the discussion for being an actual "red herring".

no not rly, since its also a snonymous to engineer, archaeo-tinkologists could be translated as mere archaeo-engineers, just guys, in this case, engineers working on titan stuff, therefore, not the tinker as playable class we are talking about AKa the same shit

Wrong. That's literally what synonyms are: same thing. You haven't shown even a single example of two synonyms that do not mean "the same thing".

again, you are straight up lying, evne in front of the actual meaning of the world, who flat out said synomys also mean NEARLY the same thing.

A single name is exactly all we need to assume they are what they are called as.

no its rly not

If you want to say they are not what they are called as, it's your burden to prove they are not, and simply saying "we don't see them doing tinker shit" is not evidence of anything.

the simple fat that they are not called tinker already give you enough "prooF", but for you? nope

I never said that. I never said what I wrote is "fact". You are the one making claims of fact, therefore you have to prove them. All I'm doing is offering an equally possible alternative that could be true as well.

you are bringing up irrelevant shit, like always, trying to lift the burden of the proof here

This is you and your argument:
There is a coin on the ground, but it's too far away to know which side is up.
You: "The head side is facing up!"
Me: "How can you be so sure? We can't see which side is up. It could just as easily be the tails side up."
You: "No! The head side is facing up!"
Me: "But how do you know it's the head side specifically that it's up on that coin over there?"

And your best response so far has been akin to "because when people call 'head or tails' they always say the word 'head' first."

do you even read what you wrote sometimes?

Irrelevant. Again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you trying to take credit for "teaching" me that only makes you look bad, as you engage in that fallacy here.

we do not have just "absence of evidence" we have plenty of evidences that suggest they are not tinkers, names, their behaviour, their working and stuff.

with the absence of evidence you are trying to claim as a canon they are tinker, just cherry-picking a name, that we already pointed out as contradictory and not always meaning the exactly same thing, thinking that is enough evidence to claim something as canon fact, despite other evidences showing otherwise.

Irrelevant, as gnomes and goblins (and dwarves) are not the only Azerothians that can work with high-end technology.

and not just the paladins races can work with the light, and not just Blood or night elves can work with demon magic, and so on, you point here is moot

I can, because they're called as such. By a synonym, but still.

you can, but you be lying anyway, cause that is not nearly evidence to proof such thing as canon fact.

Show me an example of them not being "the same shit".

you know how to use the google, you found the half-meaning of the word, go work around, you already ask me examples of words like that, now you want me to use on a phrase too? come on now.

[Teriz]

Again: prove it.

Prove what? I've already given you two reasons.

For rogues, we have Garona. Priests seem to be the exception. However, I'll go one step further: player classes are not based, at all, on lore characters, but on concepts: the 'death knight' concept, the 'paladin' concept, the 'mage' concept, the 'rogue' concept, the 'monk' concept.

It wasn't based on Garona because Garona wasn't in WC3. And "The Death Knight Concept" for example is largely based on the WC3 unit.

Cameras #2 and #3 allow us to see the pilot.

At most you'll only see the top of the pilot's head, and everything else would be the back of the mech.

And the 'Human' units encompass righteousness and

They did, but their corresponding units were broken up into multiple classes. Nearly the entire Undead faction was broken apart and given to Death Knights, because Death Knights were designed to house the Necromancer theme.

Yes, they are, because I didn't ask why they happened. Pointing out the reasons why those models were broken is irrelevant because they change in nothing the fact that they did happen. Also, funny how you didn't give a single reason why they're not irrelevant. You literally just hand-waved it while I explained why.

Pointing out the reason why those events happened shows why its unlikely to be a reason for not giving WC3 Tinker abilities to a Tinker class. Again, all the expansion classes received all of their WC3 abilities, or derivatives of them. There's no reason to believe that the Tinker would be any different.

I'm going by what the game shows me: players learn their class skills from their mentors.


The starter abilities can be explained by:
• Having learned from their parents;
• Having learned from a previous trainer;
• Having learned from a book.
Talent-based abilities can be explained by it being a concession to smooth out the gameplay experience.

Or it could be learned by the character completely on their own.

Wrong. You're taking gameplay features and using them as lore.

No, I'm using the fact that Tinkers are considered to be inventors in Warcraft lore.

Sometimes you make this so god damn easy. Click for bigger:

I'm aware of that. Where do you think they got it from?

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

[Swnem]

Engineers are tinkerers, why can't people just accept this?

Tinkerers belong in the same group as high elves at this point.

You mean as im added to the game? Totally agree.

Point one, you can't play a class with a profession that only makes hardly useful toys.

Point two, it's Tinkers cause that is what blizzard originally called them. But, we can tell you are purposidly being disengenious.

- - - Updated - - -

The day the Tinkerer fan boys get their class is the day I hard quit the game.

Well, lets hope it happens soon then, cause we don't really need people unable to accept that different people like different things.

[Ielenia]

Prove what? I've already given you two reasons.

You haven't. You gave two arbitrary distinction that in no way work the way you think they do.

It wasn't based on Garona because Garona wasn't in WC3

Irrelevant. "Must use WC3 lore characters" is absolutely nothing but an arbitrary rule you created that you act like Blizzard is somehow shackled to it. At absolutely no point Blizzard ever said anything even remotely like "we need a lore character from Warcraft 3 to base classes from".

And "The Death Knight Concept" for example is largely based on the WC3 unit.

"Little more than a third of it" is hardly "largely".

At most you'll only see the top of the pilot's head, and everything else would be the back of the mech.

No, you can see the pilot's head, shoulders, weapons and arms.

Pointing out the reason why those events happened shows why its unlikely to be a reason for not giving WC3 Tinker abilities to a Tinker class.

It does nothing of the sort. And, in fact, considering how you act as if Blizzard is "lazy" because "it's too much work to design unique designs for all the races", then by your logic, it has become much more likely that they will break the mold again and make the mech just a cooldown-- or even not use the mech at all!-- to make it easier to adapt to other races.

Or it could be learned by the character completely on their own.

No. No, they absolutely cannot, because that doesn't happen in the lore. Can you show a single instance in the lore of a character "suddenly knowing something they didn't previously know already"?

No, I'm using the fact that Tinkers are considered to be inventors in Warcraft lore.

NPC tinkers can be inventors because they spend time (often most of their time) within their workshops testing and creating things, and training. And that goes for all classes: mages, priests, warriors, warlocks, shamans, hunters, rogues, etc...

Whereas our player characters cannot be "inventors" because they are adventurers. They don't spend time in workshops or libraries or laboratories working on training, testing and creating new things. That, coupled with the fact that we did need trainers in the early days of the game, reinforce this idea that our characters are not inventors.

- - - Updated - - -

that is not an evidence to proof as canon fact, don't try to pass that like it is

So you're saying canon lore is not canon lore? Is that it? Because the Alliance in-game cinematic is canon lore.

they are both goblins and gnomes, both already stated in the wiki, they do not need to name every single one of then if they already flat out enter in the general description, that is not an incomplete list, and does not count the night elves and humans

The list is incomplete, if you want to claim that those are ALL the tinkers that exist. And, again, you simply cannot be serious if you're going to hold a third party wiki website as "more canon" than the game's lore itself.

no not rly, since its also a snonymous to engineer, archaeo-tinkologists could be translated as mere archaeo-engineers,

So tinkers are synonymous with "engineers"? Weren't you guys fighting me, a few years back, when I said that tinkers were just engineers?

again, you are straight up lying, evne in front of the actual meaning of the world, who flat out said synomys also mean NEARLY the same thing.

I'm not lying. You, on the other hand, are misrepresenting things. You're taking this "nearly the same thing" and acting as if it allowed you to say that words could be 'synonymous' while still being very different. When something is "nearly the same" as something else, it means that those differences are almost negligible.

no its rly not

Because you say so? And, again, dishonesty and double-standards, because you refuse to accept that those are tinkers despite them being called by a synonym in the lore, but you're quite happy to claim as a fact that the concubines in Illidan's temple are his, and no one else's, despite them never being referred to as Illidan's.

the simple fat that they are not called tinker already give you enough "prooF",

But they are. They're called by the synonym, which is basically the same thing.

you are bringing up irrelevant shit, like always, trying to lift the burden of the proof here

Dude. Stop projecting. Again: you were the one that brought the concubines into the discussion. And now you're whining that I'm examining and contesting your evidence instead of believing you at face value.

we do not have just "absence of evidence" we have plenty of evidences that suggest they are not tinkers, names, their behaviour, their working and stuff.

The only think we have is absence. Pure and simple. We have zero evidence that they are not tinkers. Names? They're unnamed. Their behavior? They work with high technology. That's tinker behavior. Their working? Again: high technology, a tinker trait.

with the absence of evidence you are trying to claim as a canon they are tinker,

But there is no absence of evidence that they are tinkers. We have a source of canon lore calling them by a synonym of the word 'tinker'.

and not just the paladins races can work with the light, and not just Blood or night elves can work with demon magic, and so on, you point here is moot

It's not a moot point. It's a concise point that there are night elf and human tinkers.

you can, but you be lying anyway, cause that is not nearly evidence to proof such thing as canon fact.

I'm lying? I'm lying that the Alliance Mechagon intro cinematic is canon? I'm lying when I say that those human and night elf are called 'tinkologists'? I'm lying when I say that word is a synonym for "tinker"? No, I'm not.

you know how to use the google, you found the half-meaning of the word, go work around, you already ask me examples of words like that, now you want me to use on a phrase too? come on now.

So you're backpedaling? You once again make a claim but is unable to present any evidence of such. "Nearly the same thing" means that differences are almost negligible, if not outright negligible.

[Syegfryed]

So you're saying canon lore is not canon lore? Is that it? Because the Alliance in-game cinematic is canon lore.

you are cherry-picking a lame ass synonym trying to pass as irrefutable canon proof, that is laughable

The list is incomplete, if you want to claim that those are ALL the tinkers that exist. And, again, you simply cannot be serious if you're going to hold a third party wiki website as "more canon" than the game's lore itself.

the third party wiki is the one saying the tinkologists and engineers are tinker synonymy lad, if you want to disregard the wiki the aspect of incomplete information(that is just inside your head) you have to disregard everything else including their way of putting the words as synonyms

you want only the part of the wiki who said they are synonyms to be right while saying the rest is wrong or incomplete, LMAO

again, there is not a single ingame canon source that says tinkologists are tinkers, neither the archae-tinkologists are for sure tinkers, there is no ingame source saying they are the same thing and synonyms, you are grabbing the third party wiki information and forcing as canon

So tinkers are synonymous with "engineers"? Weren't you guys fighting me, a few years back, when I said that tinkers were just engineers?

you still didn't learn what synonyms means?

I'm not lying. You, on the other hand, are misrepresenting things.

proceed to misinterpret the wiki, the words and the meaning of synonym and nearly, top kek

You're taking this "nearly the same thing" and acting as if it allowed you to say that words could be 'synonymous' while still being very different. When something is "nearly the same" as something else, it means that those differences are almost negligible.

no, you are treating as the same shit, im just saying they are not the exactly same thing, therefore, your argument hold no weight

But they are. They're called by the synonym, which is basically the same thing.

thats just not how it works, and you now that

Dude. Stop projecting. Again: you were the one that brought the concubines into the discussion. And now you're whining that I'm examining and contesting your evidence instead of believing you at face value.

you are red-herring with irrelevant stuff, you always do that, every time someone said something you come with the a nonsense trying to disregard what is said: "but how do you know that? maybe they were in cocaine while shoving a arcane crystal in their ass? you don't knowt that!! try to proof they didn't shove it!" learn how to do a debate

The only think we have is absence. Pure and simple. We have zero evidence that they are not tinkers

LOL so, there is a fuck ton of races in wow who could be anything simple because "we have zero evidence THEY ARE NOT something", looks like you are getting desperate

Names? They're unnamed.

they were not named tinkers

Their behavior? They work with high technology. That's tinker behavior. Their working? Again: high technology, a tinker trait.

like i said, any engineer could do that, but not all engineers are tinkers, like we already established, you are using another fallacy assuming because two things share a property, that makes them the same thing.

But there is no absence of evidence that they are tinkers. We have a source of canon lore calling them by a synonym of the word 'tinker'.

which the synonymy is entire based on the third party wiki that you labeled "incomplete" a while a go, there is no canon ingame source saying tinkers are indeed tinkologists and are the same thing, there is not a single evidence of they being tinkers, just engineers, therefore you cannot say as a fact they are tinkers

they can be, if blizz say so and add the rest of their lore, but there is nothing saying that until now

It's not a moot point. It's a concise point that there are night elf and human tinkers.

there is not, and this, is your headcanon

"Nearly the same thing" means that differences are almost negligible, if not outright negligible.

no, nearly mean almost, close, very close or closely, you have to work on your definitions cause your big problem is bringing up false or wrong premises and try to make a "canon" fact from that

[Teriz]

You haven't. You gave two arbitrary distinction that in no way work the way you think they do.

Except they're not arbitary, they're actual distinctions. Simply because you don't believe it doesn't change that fact.

Irrelevant. "Must use WC3 lore characters" is absolutely nothing but an arbitrary rule you created that you act like Blizzard is somehow shackled to it. At absolutely no point Blizzard ever said anything even remotely like "we need a lore character from Warcraft 3 to base classes from".

Except again, it's not arbitrary, since there is clear reason behind it, and it shows up in every example.

"Little more than a third of it" is hardly "largely".

The concept of the Blood spec comes from the DK as well.

No, you can see the pilot's head, shoulders, weapons and arms.

Just FYI, the Gnome is sitting INSIDE the mech, not on top of it.

It does nothing of the sort. And, in fact, considering how you act as if Blizzard is "lazy" because "it's too much work to design unique designs for all the races", then by your logic, it has become much more likely that they will break the mold again and make the mech just a cooldown-- or even not use the mech at all!-- to make it easier to adapt to other races.

There's a difference between creating a mech form for 3-4 races (see Druids), and creating unique spell animations for 5-6 races (something they've never done except for Heroism/Bloodlust/Timewarp, and that was just one spell).

No. No, they absolutely cannot, because that doesn't happen in the lore. Can you show a single instance in the lore of a character "suddenly knowing something they didn't previously know already"?

You seem to miss the point that it doesn't need to happen in lore for Blizzard to simply say that Tinkers learn stuff without the need of a trainer. In addition, we already have our own player characters learning abilities without contact with a trainer.

NPC tinkers can be inventors because they spend time (often most of their time) within their workshops testing and creating things, and training. And that goes for all classes: mages, priests, warriors, warlocks, shamans, hunters, rogues, etc...

Whereas our player characters cannot be "inventors" because they are adventurers. They don't spend time in workshops or libraries or laboratories working on training, testing and creating new things. That, coupled with the fact that we did need trainers in the early days of the game, reinforce this idea that our characters are not inventors.

Who is to say that while traveling from Stormwind to Pandaria the Tinker simply didn't make a workshop in their cabin? Who is to say that while the Tinker stayed at an inn they didn't (again) convert their room into a workshop and churn out more inventions? Your argument is utterly ridiculous.

[Swnem]

Tinkerers ain't happenin'. Get over it.

That's is a certainty you don't have to give.

You may have to eat those words one day.

[Teriz]

Tinkerers ain't happenin'. Get over it.

If you believe that, why are you worried about it?

[Traveler Voltin]

i am still amazed how many people are scared of Tinkers.
its seems like a horror story for them for some reason.

[Ielenia]

Except they're not arbitary, they're actual distinctions. Simply because you don't believe it doesn't change that fact.

No, they're not. At no point you've ever given any quote or link to a Blizzard statement where they confirm this. "Dude, trust me!" and "because I, Teriz, say so!" are not valid sources.

Except again, it's not arbitrary, since there is clear reason behind it

Giving a subjective reason does not make it any less arbitrary. At best, you have a correlation, Teriz. And it'll never stop being any more than that until we have confirmation from Blizzard's lips themselves.

and it shows up in every example.

"Every example", except, as you claim, the priest and rogue classes, right?

The concept of the Blood spec comes from the DK as well.

Aren't you big proponent that "concepts come from abilities"? Well, the WC3 death knight has absolutely zero 'blood' abilities in it.

Just FYI, the Gnome is sitting INSIDE the mech, not on top of it.

And still visible from its cockpit.

There's a difference between creating a mech form for 3-4 races (see Druids), and creating unique spell animations for 5-6 races (something they've never done except for Heroism/Bloodlust/Timewarp, and that was just one spell).

Not even druids had unique spell animations, even when the class was restricted to just two races, so what makes you think this will happen to the tech class?

You seem to miss the point that it doesn't need to happen in lore for Blizzard to simply say that Tinkers learn stuff without the need of a trainer.

And you seem to miss the point that you are not Blizzard. If you want to build a class idea, you have to keep yourself within the limits presented by the lore of the game.

In addition, we already have our own player characters learning abilities without contact with a trainer.

Objectively false as you're taking game mechanics and treating them as lore. It is simply asinine to say our characters learn "by themselves, out of nowhere" in the lore simply because the game doesn't require us to visit a trainer to learn new spells anymore.

Who is to say that while traveling from Stormwind to Pandaria the Tinker simply didn't make a workshop in their cabin?

What cabin? In the ship? What can he create, and test, in the short travel time? Especially since our heroes travel through portals after they establish a forward base.

Who is to say that while the Tinker stayed at an inn they didn't (again) convert their room into a workshop and churn out more inventions?

Who is to say the innkeeper would allow someone do stuff that can easily explode or go haywire within their inn?

Your argument is utterly ridiculous.

The lack of self-awareness is palpable.