Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ...
32
40
41
42
  1. #821
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Your opinion isn't lore either.
    It's not an opinion that game mechanics is not lore.

    Once again, get a statement from Blizzard saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from a trainer, because in WoW you don't.
    Teriz, you're the one making a claim that goes against established lore and against basic logic. You are the one that needs a statement from Blizzard.

    I never said all. I said that you clearly learn some of your abilities without the trainer. This happened in Classic/Vanilla WoW as well.
    And, again, that is a gameplay concession to smooth out gameplay. To say our characters "learn things spontaneously" is completely and totally illogical.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  2. #822
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    It's not an opinion that game mechanics is not lore.
    Your opinion is that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers. The game does not support your opinion.


    Teriz, you're the one making a claim that goes against established lore and against basic logic. You are the one that needs a statement from Blizzard.
    If it goes against established lore then you should have no problem providing a lore statement saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers.


    And, again, that is a gameplay concession to smooth out gameplay. To say our characters "learn things spontaneously" is completely and totally illogical.
    Where's your evidence? My evidence is the game not requiring you to return to a trainer to learn talent abilities, or your starting ability.

    Your turn.

  3. #823
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Your opinion is that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers. The game does not support your opinion.
    The lore does, and we're talking about lore, the lore trumps gameplay and game mechanics, always.

    If it goes against established lore then you should have no problem providing a lore statement saying that we learn ALL of our abilities from trainers.
    Teriz. Characters learning new things from mentors, books and other items is consistent with basic logic and narrative logic. Your claim defies both of those things, so it's you who need to provide a statement.

    Where's your evidence? My evidence is the game not requiring you to return to a trainer to learn talent abilities, or your starting ability.

    Your turn.
    Gameplay and game mechanics are not lore. The game also doesn't require you to stop to take a breather even once when your blood elf runs from Silvermoon to Booty Bay. The game also allows the same blood elf to make that run while carrying over thirty tons of weight on their shoulders. The game also allows that same blood elf to float in the water while carrying those over 30 tons of weight. The game also allows you to summon a meteor to crash on your friend's head... and not do a single bit of damage to them. The game also does not allow you kill or even harm children, so do you think children are immortal and invulnerable in the lore?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  4. #824
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The lore does, and we're talking about lore, the lore trumps gameplay and game mechanics, always.
    What lore? Show it to me. Show me where it says in the lore that you learn ALL of your abilities from a trainer.

  5. #825
    Old God Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    10,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    So you're going to dishonestly misrepresent my argument? Because you ignored a very important part of my argument: "based on what we have seen them do."
    dishonesty is you trying to pass those hints or evidence and theories as factual proof that they are the same thing
    We have evidence that they may be, and we have zero evidence that they may not.
    no, you want to think there is no evidence they "may not", neverthless, there is nothing to set in stone they are, so, again, you are wrong here

    You were the one who claimed synonyms "are not always the same thing", so it's very valid to ask for an example when they're not the same thing, i.e. one but not the other.
    and i literally gave you an example, and you still don't want to accept, its not my problem now, go search on the internet

    Funny how you love to accuse me of "headcanon" and "projection" and whatnot... but here you are doing the exact same thing. Worse, because your "headcanon" goes against factual evidence, because there are many tinkers who do not use mechs to fight.
    but they fight, the tinkologists are not doing that, so?
    Yes, it does, and I've already explained the reasoning and the evidence. You, so far, have only said that they're not the same thing because we're not explicitly told they're the same thing.
    your only "evidence" of they being the same thing is they working on technology, this again, is not nearly enough proof to state as fact the bold claim you did, you are using the biased generalizing fallacy

    Siegecrafter Blackfuse was never called a "tinker" in game. Does that mean he is not a tinker, then? Gazlowe is also never called a "tinker".
    unlike your night elves overlords, blackfuse actually have evidence of being tinker other than name and "dealing with tecnology"

    The wiki also says that "tinkers" and "tinkologists" are the same thing.
    says they are synonyms* and as we saw, don't always mean the same thing, nice, go on

    So if you're going to say "they don't exist in the wiki, therefore they are not canon", then you also must accept that "tinkers" and "tinkologists" are the same thing since the wiki says they are.
    this was not rly a good tentative to flip the table, rly weak.

    we must accept that tinkers and tinkologist sometimes means the same thing, we must accept that also, sometimes they do not mean the same thing, because synonyms.

    If they were the same thing, the wiki would said that, and would also include those there, but its not the case, as we see, working with technology isn't the only trait of tinkers and everyone who do that isn't a tinker
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2020-07-25 at 02:34 AM.

  6. #826
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    What lore? Show it to me. Show me where it says in the lore that you learn ALL of your abilities from a trainer.
    Teriz, please try to argue against basic logic and narrative logic.

    There is not a single example in the lore of people in Azeroth learning things "spontaneously". We have schools and academies in the lore, things that would be wholly unnecessary if the people just "learned things spontaneously".

    You're taking a game mechanic and treating it as if it is lore. And that is wrong. It doesn't work like that, and I've shown you examples of why that is the case.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  7. #827
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Teriz, please try to argue against basic logic and narrative logic.

    There is not a single example in the lore of people in Azeroth learning things "spontaneously". We have schools and academies in the lore, things that would be wholly unnecessary if the people just "learned things spontaneously".

    You're taking a game mechanic and treating it as if it is lore. And that is wrong. It doesn't work like that, and I've shown you examples of why that is the case.
    So in other words you have no evidence beyond your head canon. Not surprising.

    FYI, what we see in the game overrides your personal head canon.

  8. #828
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    no, you want to think there is no evidence they "may not"
    Ok. So what is this evidence that points that they may not be the same?

    neverthless, there is nothing to set in stone they are so again, you are wrong here
    Again: there is evidence that 'tinker' and 'tinkologist' might be the same.

    and i literally gave you an example, and you still don't want to accept,
    You game me an example in which both can be used interchangeably. An 8 in a test is both good and excellent. So is a 10 in the test.

    but they fight, the tinkologists are not doing that, so?
    So what? That doesn't prove that they don't.

    your only "evidence" of they being the same thing is they working on technology, this again, is not nearly enough proof to state as fact the bold claim you did, you are using the biased generalizing fallacy
    Incorrect. I say they work with high-end technology. There is a difference.

    unlike your night elves overlords, blackfuse actually have evidence of being tinker other than name and "dealing with tecnology"
    And Gazlowe?

    tsays they are snynomyms* and as we saw, don't lways mean the same thing, nice, go on
    "We" saw nothing, since you haven't shown any example in which synonyms don't mean the same thing. Your "good/excellent" example fails because an 8 can be considered "excellent" as well.

    this was not rly a good tentative to flip the table, rly weak.

    we must accept that tinkers and tinkologist sometimes means the same thing, we must accept that also, sometimes they do not mean, because synonyms.
    Why should we, since it hasn't been ever demonstrated that they "sometimes tinkologists are not tinker" or vice-versa?

    If they were the same thing, the wiki would said that,
    They did. "Tinkers (or tinkerers or tinkologists)" remember?

    and would also include those there,
    So here we have you assuming the list to be "complete" and the 'be-and-end-all' for the existing tinkers. If you're going to do that, then you should take the rest of the page as "truth" and accept that tinkers and tinkologists are the same thing because it's written on the page.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So in other words you have no evidence beyond your head canon. Not surprising.
    Teriz, don't try to play cute and pretend you have any leg to stand on with that nonsensical claim of yours. Game mechanics are not lore. People don't spontaneously learn things out of nowhere.

    FYI, what we see in the game overrides your personal head canon.
    No. It doesn't. Because, again, game mechanics are not lore.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  9. #829
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Teriz, don't try to play cute and pretend you have any leg to stand on with that nonsensical claim of yours. Game mechanics are not lore. People don't spontaneously learn things out of nowhere.
    Again, Game mechanics are more lore-based than your head canon. Let me know when you get that statement from Blizzard proving that your head canon is actually lore. Somehow I have a feeling that I’m going to be waiting for a very long time.

  10. #830
    Old God Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    10,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Again: there is evidence that 'tinker' and 'tinkologist' might be the same.
    might be is the key word here, they are not the same thing in the canon for a fact like you claim to be before, they might be, therefore, your point is moot, and you are just arguing for the sake or argue

    you can't say for a fact that they ARE.
    You game me an example in which both can be used interchangeably. An 8 in a test is both good and excellent. So is a 10 in the test.
    in your head maybe, many people would not say a 8 is excelent, if the pattern of excelent is 10, we can even lower and put a 7 and would still be good but not excelent, again, you are just arguing for the sake or argue

    And Gazlowe?
    tbh here, Gazlowe might not be a proper tinker either, i didn't claim he was, he could be/probably is, but without evidence i at least will not say for certain.

    At least his portrayed in Hots it is from a proper tinker, not canon at all but still is a thing if they want to take that in account

    Why should we, since it hasn't been ever demonstrated that they "sometimes tinkologists are not tinker" or vice-versa?
    so, your point is:

    "nowhere is said they are tinkers, but since nowhere is said they are not tinkers, they are tinkers"


    its a dumb logic, and you are dragging this discussion down because ~~reasons~~

  11. #831
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    might be is the key word here, they are not the same thing in the canon for a fact like you claim to be before, they might be, therefore, your point is moot, and you are just arguing for the sake or argue

    you can't say for a fact that they ARE.
    But you can say as a fact that they're not?

    in your head maybe, many people would not say a 8 is excelent,
    It's funny how you accuse me of "making things up", and having things "just in my head", when you go ahead and do that exact same in the same sentence.

    so, your point is:

    "nowhere is said they are tinkers, but since nowhere is said they are not tinkers, they are tinkers"


    its a dumb logic, and you are dragging this discussion down because ~~reasons~~
    No. That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. My position is: "Nowhere it is stated that they are tinkers. Nowhere it is stated that they are not tinkers. But there is evidence that points to the idea that they are tinkers."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Again, Game mechanics are more lore-based than your head canon.
    No. No, you are wrong. Game mechanics rarely reflect lore:
    • Gameplay allows our characters to remain conscious, standing, and fighting normally after being eviscerated, our internal organs removed. That goes against basic logic and narrative logic.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to remain conscious, standing, and fighting normally after having pieces of our souls painfully carved off.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to survive and take no damage whatsoever from a fall miles high... as long as we fall in the water.
    • Gameplay requires undead characters to breathe underwater... when they don't need to breathe.
    • Gameplay allows our character to run from Silvermoon to Booty Bay, without stopping even once, while carrying over 30 tons of weight on their shoulders, and reach their destination without being even slightly winded.
    • Gameplay makes priests, mages and others be physically unable to wield a shield.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to float in the water like they're wearing floaties, despite being clad in full plate armor.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to spontaneously learn new things without the help of mentors and trainers.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to come back from the brink of death, curing grievous wounds in seconds by eating one apple.
    • Gameplay prevents all players of the opposite faction from attacking you, if you don't have PvP mode on.
    • Gameplay prevents you from being dismounted when you're on a flight taxi.
    • Gameplay does not require your character to sleep.
    • Gameplay says that one apple takes the same space in your bags as a two-handed warhammer.
    • Gameplay allows you to magically summon your mounts out of thin air.
    • Gameplay says our characters are homeless.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to speak with each other even inter-dimensionally and even through time by... whispering.
    • Gameplay allows Horde players to replay the Warfront battles over and over and allow them to win, despite lore saying the Alliance won the warfronts.
    • Gameplay allows us to be instant and magically teleported into a "dungeon" the moment an unseen force selects four other characters to accompany yours.
    • Gameplay allows us to clear a "dungeon" over and over and over again, in the same day.
    • Gameplay allows our characters to know what's behind their backs without them even turning around to look.
    • Gameplay does not allow our characters to change classes, despite that happening more than once already in the lore.
    • Etc, etc, etc.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

  12. #832
    Old God Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    10,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    But you can say as a fact that they're not?
    Jesus, you can't let it go right?

    It's funny how you accuse me of "making things up", and having things "just in my head", when you go ahead and do that exact same in the same sentence.
    >ask me for an example
    >complain i use an example of my head

    you are just being pointless
    No. That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. My position is: "Nowhere it is stated that they are tinkers. Nowhere it is stated that they are not tinkers. But there is evidence that points to the idea that they are tinkers."
    "therefore they are tinkers" and that is a headcanon, since there is also evidence that points to the idea of they just being engineers and not tinkers, so again, moot point.

    If there is not facts proving for certain they are tinkers they are not for the sake of this conversation

  13. #833
    I was really banking on tinkers being announced in BFA or SL and wanted to make a vulpera tinker named Ratchet.

    BFA in particular would've made a lot of sense because of azerite. Missed opportunity, I say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daevelian View Post
    So this is how far the Lore forum has fallen? Eesh.
    I take it back, BfA is not the lowest the games lore could have gone, this thread proves that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    And just like the thread before it, let's back away from sexualizing Azshara and return to the original topic at hand.

  14. #834
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post

    Well here’s the thing, while you can’t mass res, you can still wear heavy armor and use holy magic like Anduin. While you can’t possess people like the Lich King, you can take over the minds of the undead, and you’ll get some of his abilities like Defile and Soul Reaper. And yes, Guldan is an immensely powerful warlock, yet the Warlock class can still utilize abilities that mirror what he does.

    Gnomes and Goblins can’t do that with Mekkatorque or Gazlowe. Also it isn’t just those two who use mechs or crazy tech, it’s almost every major Goblin or Gnome figure.

    Noggenfogger has a mech. Gallywix has two mechs. Razdunk had a mech. Blackfuse had a mech. Cruschcog had a mech. Her Tallness has a mech. The Gob Squad had a mech. Thermaplugg had a mech. Razak had a mech, Goblin Mech Jockies use mechs, etc.

    In the Goblin starter zone, you pilot a mech to play football.

    It gets to the point where you’re wondering why you can’t partake in something that is obviously common among these races. Also for them being “giant”, they honestly shouldn’t be any bigger than a fully armored Draenei or Tauren.
    I mean if you're talking about like minature mech suits then sure maybe but id still be very concerned about what sorts of abilities they have, it could easily feel too technologically advanced. On one hand though, ive always thought engineering was badly underdeveloped and exciting but it kinda has to be otherwise everyone would use it, a tinker would be fun no doubt, but still again, concerns over how advanced it would feel.

  15. #835
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Again, Game mechanics are more lore-based than your head canon. Let me know when you get that statement from Blizzard proving that your head canon is actually lore. Somehow I have a feeling that I’m going to be waiting for a very long time.
    In Classic and for a few expansions you had to visit your class trainer every few levels. There were even books that dropped in AQ which taught you spells above the trainable max rank in Classic.

    First the ranks were removed as a QoL improvement as mana regen was reworked so players no longer needed to juggle the lower rank spells into their rotations to conserve mana, especially healers.

    Then as an ultimate QoL improvement to streamline the leveling experience you just get the spells when you level up.

    And now we get ppl who mistake QoL with Lore. You want proof? The class trainers in the old zones.

  16. #836
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Again, Game mechanics are more lore-based than your head canon. Let me know when you get that statement from Blizzard proving that your head canon is actually lore. Somehow I have a feeling that I’m going to be waiting for a very long time.
    Why are you even talking about Game Mechanics when you don't even seem to understand basic game mechanics, looking at your class concept.

  17. #837
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Difuid View Post
    In Classic and for a few expansions you had to visit your class trainer every few levels. There were even books that dropped in AQ which taught you spells above the trainable max rank in Classic.

    First the ranks were removed as a QoL improvement as mana regen was reworked so players no longer needed to juggle the lower rank spells into their rotations to conserve mana, especially healers.

    Then as an ultimate QoL improvement to streamline the leveling experience you just get the spells when you level up.

    And now we get ppl who mistake QoL with Lore. You want proof? The class trainers in the old zones.
    I've accounted for that. My point is that even in classic you automatically gained talent points and placed the talent points without any input from a trainer. These included talent-based abilities as well.

    Additionally, when you start the game (in classic) you already know abilities.

  18. #838
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    >ask me for an example
    >complain i use an example of my head

    you are just being pointless
    The problem is that your example uses the exact same thing that you accuse me of doing and claim I'm wrong for using it.

    "therefore they are tinkers" and that is a headcanon,
    And once again you misrepresent me, since that not part of my statement.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2020-07-25 at 06:55 PM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    Update 08/17: I changed how the Bone spec's golem mechanic works, as well as some other minor changes.
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!
    Update 09/02: Apparently the mods decided to merge my class concept thread with an existing one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •