Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Daedius]

I want em, I want 'em bad!

[Tiwack]

Because it's synonymous with engineering and a lot of players have the profession. Rather than think of what'll be gained they think of what'll be lost.

[Sinte]

The iconic Hunter for many long-time WoW players is the Dwarf Hunter in the original WoW cinematic. The one with a bear pet and a gun. Not some Elf with a bow, a Dwarf with a gun (and a fabulous beard).

Ehhhh, I'd argue elves with bows are a lot more iconic in the wow universe, because most people that played vanilla wow from the start, came from the RTS, where yes we had the dwarf units, but all the hero units in both campaign and custom games used bows.

Not that I want to take any bad assness away from our loveable bear dwarfy from the OG cinematic.

[Teriz]

You get these stats from where? Not that they seem unreasonable, mainly because Dwarves themselves aren't that popular a race. However, what people find iconic and what they play isn't necessarily the same thing.

https://www.warcraftrealms.com/census.php

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's synonymous with engineering and a lot of players have the profession. Rather than think of what'll be gained they think of what'll be lost.

It's actually synonymous with this;

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml
https://heroesofthestorm.gamepedia.com/Gazlowe

[PrivateSmiley]

Chocolate chip cookies and Almond cookies aren't the same cookie.

Also you took those responses out of context. Thage originally said "defining mechanic", not "core mechanic".

I know reading is hard for you, So i bolded the important things

You are nitpicking grammatical semantics.
we call that a Strawman

Lets see what our friends from Excelsior College have to say about Strawman arguments(https://shorturl.at/bguFO)
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

here, they even give us some images!
--- snip ---

In this example, you’ll notice how Dr. Fallacy completely distorted the speaker’s point. While this is an extreme example, it’s important to be careful not to fall into this kind of fallacy on a smaller scale because it’s quite easy to do. Think about times you may have even accidentally misrepresented the other side in an argument. We have to be careful to avoid even the accidental straw man fallacy!


In addition, from our good friends at Merriam-Webster:

Define (https://shorturl.at/rtRZ1):
to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline
CHARACTERIZE, DISTINGUISH

Core (https://shorturl.at/copW1):
a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity)
the essential meaning
the inmost or most intimate part

If you need any help understanding the bolded words, let us know.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...W-class-in-9-0

Way more than 10.

Also, just because you proxied your IP address to vote over and over again doesn't add anything to your argument.

[Kayb]

I’d rather have Gunslingers than Tinkers.

[naeblis495]

Which is an irrelevant point, because we're simply talking about mechanics here. A Guardian Druid can't tank a raid outside of Bear form. A Druid can't perform competitive DPS outside of Moonkin or Feral form.

Looking at simple game mechanics, a Tinker's default state would be a pilot form, much like the Druid caster form. The Tinker should have some abilities in this form, however their main mode of fighting would be in their mech form, just like the Druid's animal forms.

- - - Updated - - -



Look up Sample Size please.

Playing a robot is just way better then . no need to involve a weak and fragile tinker controling it . Give me sentient robots/transformers that morph themselves into cool machines to do stuff , not a weak ass mechanic .

[Teriz]

I know reading is hard for you, So i bolded the important things

You are nitpicking grammatical semantics.
we call that a Strawman

Uh no, I'm pointing out that you took what i said out of context.

In any case, if you think a class sharing a single mechanic is some huge problem, that's your issue.

[PrivateSmiley]

Uh no, I'm pointing out that you took what i said out of context.

In any case, if you think a class sharing a single mechanic is some huge problem, that's your issue.

Also you took those responses out of context. Thage originally said "defining mechanic", not "core mechanic".

I didn't take anything out of context. you were the one who defined that it was a difference between "defining" and "core". I merely noted that you were creating a stawman (which you just did, Again) and provided some reading materials to help you out.

Playing a robot is just way better then . no need to involve a weak and fragile tinker controling it . Give me sentient robots/transformers that morph themselves into cool machines to do stuff , not a weak ass mechanic .

I agree!

why be a Elf, when i can be a ROBOT ELF?
heck, why be a warrior when i can be a MECH-WARRIOR!

Mechadruids, that sounds great!

Mechalocks summoning Mecha-imps? I'd reroll in a heartbeat!

[Teriz]

Playing a robot is just way better then . no need to involve a weak and fragile tinker controling it . Give me sentient robots/transformers that morph themselves into cool machines to do stuff , not a weak ass mechanic .

Then feel free to play a Mechagnome.

People tend to like the concept of the "fragile pilot" piloting a technologically advanced mech.

[PrivateSmiley]

Then feel free to play a Mechagnome.

People tend to like the concept of the "fragile pilot" piloting a technologically advanced mech.

Can you cite a source?

What people? People that play Warframe?

People that read books?

This guy?

[Teriz]

Can you cite a source?

What people? People that play Warframe?
People that read books?

People here on MMOC. Which explains why the Tinker polls quite well on these forms versus other class concepts.

[Ielenia]

What a dumb analogy. A better analogy would be that Ford's last three compact sedans had four cylinders and were automatics. Thus it stands to reason that Ford's next compact sedan will also be four cylinder and automatic.

Again: you pointing out the similarities between our current expansion classes is meaningless because you haven't proven that such similarities are a requirement for class design.

So the last three WoW classes coming from WC3 heroes is not evidence for the next WoW class to also come from a WC3 hero?

Precisely. The three current expansion classes being linked to a campaign playable hero unit from the Warcraft 3 game does not prove that a "playable warcraft 3 hero unit" is a 'mandatory requirement' or even a 'requirement' at all for class design.

Otherwise, you might as well say that having two words in the class' name is a requirement for it to be a hero class.

Yeah, Warlocks just had Demonology nuked from orbit in 6.2, and Metamorphosis is removed from Demonology and Warlocks in the next expansion. The same expansion that just happens to introduce the Demon Hunter class.

What a coincidence.....

Coincidences happen. Shock of all shocks, I know. But they do. You want to establish causation? Then prove it, with some conclusive evidence. "They happened so close to each other" is not conclusive evidence.

I'm not dragging this dumb and thoroughly debunked argument into this thread.

It hasn't been "thoroughly debunked", or even "half-debunked", Teriz. You don't get to unilaterally declare that when you haven't done anything other than say "because game mechanics", since game mechanics are not lore.

[Teriz]

Again: you pointing out the similarities between our current expansion classes is meaningless because you haven't proven that such similarities are a requirement for class design.

I haven’t proven it to you. Fortunately, I don’t need to prove it to you.

Precisely. The three current expansion classes being linked to a campaign playable hero unit from the Warcraft 3 game does not prove that a "playable warcraft 3 hero unit" is a 'mandatory requirement' or even a 'requirement' at all for class design.

Gazlowe is a Tinker.

Coincidences happen. Shock of all shocks, I know. But they do. You want to establish causation? Then prove it, with some conclusive evidence. "They happened so close to each other" is not conclusive evidence.

Except everyone knows that Demonology was changed to make way for the Demon Hunter. There's no point in even arguing about it.

It hasn't been "thoroughly debunked", or even "half-debunked", Teriz. You don't get to unilaterally declare that when you haven't done anything other than say "because game mechanics", since game mechanics are not lore.

You never provided your lore statement from Blizzard, so yeah your argument is debunked.

[csguba]

If people are bored of this topic, they don't need to participate. They can just skip over this ONE thread and read the hundreds of other active threads on this forum.

But that's the point, it's not one thread. The OP asked the question so it's very legitimate to give an answer even if it's clearly one you oppose.

[Teriz]

But that's the point, it's not one thread. The OP asked the question so it's very legitimate to give an answer even if it's clearly one you oppose.

Before this thread, there was one active "tinker" thread on the forum which was several days old. Before that thread, there wasn't a Tinker thread for months. There is no scenario where there's "2 Tinker threads popping up everyday".

[Ielenia]

I haven’t proven it to you. Fortunately, I don’t need to prove it to you.

No. It wasn't proven. Period. All you're doing is taking correlation and implying causation. And that is a fallacy.

Gazlowe is a Tinker.

Gazlowe has not been shown to be a tinker. He is never referred to one, and, as far as I know, he was never seen fighting in a mech. And again:

The three current expansion classes being linked to a campaign playable hero unit from the Warcraft 3 game does not prove that a "playable warcraft 3 hero unit" is a 'mandatory requirement' or even a 'requirement' at all for class design.

Except everyone knows that Demonology was changed to make way for the Demon Hunter. There's no point in even arguing about it.

"Everyone" knows bullshit. The veracity of a statement does not depend on the amount of people that believe it to be true.

You never provided your lore statement from Blizzard, so yeah your argument is debunked.

Teriz, I'm not the one who needs a statement from Blizzard. You do. Because your argument defies basic logic.

[Skillslam]

steampunk ruined wow and the suspension of disbelief

alliance shouldve won this shit 10 years ago with the WW2 era fighter planes and Vietnam choppers the gnomes pulled out of their asses

[Geckoo]

So you think a Tinker class would involve beating a boss by crafting guns and goggles? Because that is exactly what you're saying and that is what Engineering does

No, that's not what i said at all: "the profession does not really represent the combat capabilities of a tinker".

But right now both the profession and the class concept are based on the same core theme: crazy mechanical stuff from goblins and gnomes usually presented in a funny way (that i personally like a lot btw). That's why we used to have goblin/gnome specializations and those two races are exactly the first thing that comes to mind if we say tinker.

So what i'm saying is that for the archetype to work as a class it needs to be detached from that theme and work with a wider scope, have a more serious core theme that can work for more races and have some stuff change with your race, just as shamans or druids.

Then you can pick a goblin/gnome 'machinist' (i'm using this word just for clarity), you can call yourself 'tinker' and add engineering to top it up if you want, that would be the 'perfect' tinker experience.
But you could also pick a draenei 'machinist' and be an artificer. Or pick an orc and be a siege engineer... same gameplay, same core theme, a few different visuals that makes it work for each available race.

[Kithelle]

No, that's not what i said at all: "the profession does not really represent the combat capabilities of a tinker".

But right now both the profession and the class concept are based on the same core theme: crazy mechanical stuff from goblins and gnomes usually presented in a funny way (that i personally like a lot btw). That's why we used to have goblin/gnome specializations and those two races are exactly the first thing that comes to mind if we say tinker.

So what i'm saying is that for the archetype to work as a class it needs to be detached from that theme and work with a wider scope, have a more serious core theme that can work for more races and have some stuff change with your race, just as shamans or druids.

Then you can pick a goblin/gnome 'machinist' (i'm using this word just for clarity), you can call yourself 'tinker' and add engineering to top it up if you want, that would be the 'perfect' tinker experience.
But you could also pick a draenei 'machinist' and be an artificer. Or pick an orc and be a siege engineer... same gameplay, same core theme, a few different visuals that makes it work for each available race.

Enchanter and Mage basically share a core theme, both use magic to do things...empower things.

Maybe if this was expansions ago when Engineer had all those attachments but those times are long gone...Engineer is basically just another crafting profession now.