Page 23 of 52 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
24
25
33
... LastLast
  1. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    In the final analysis all of this is pretty meaningless. The real question that should be asked is this; Does the profession fulfill the fantasy of the Tinker (or whatever you wish to call the tech class)? If the answer is no, then lore and semantics are meaningless, because we have hole in the class lineup, and we have a related hero unit from WC3 (and HotS) with open abilities. Blizzard can bend, add, or break lore to bring the class into the game.
    Right, so the Tinker isn't the Tony Stark of Warcraft. It's the Rocket Raccoon of Warcraft because Tinkers are short dudes who make weapons and like to blow stuff up. That's the fantasy of the Tinker.

    As for fulfilling a Tinker identity, Engineering doesn't have to fulfill that at all. Right now, Tinker is synonymous with Engineer, and is typically viewed as a subset of the broader Engineer role. Like I said in previous posts, Engineers build anything-everything, while Tinkers that we've seen so far only make combat-viable weaponry.

    Which is odd really since Tinkers in real life meaning were tradesmen who repaired pots and pans and other trinkets and went around selling and trading their goods. They were as far removed from combat as your typical merchant.

  2. #442
    Elemental Lord Brewmaster Kolee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Peak of Serenity
    Posts
    8,089
    I've never felt hate only apathy. Sorry, it's just not something that appeals to me.

    Remember it's a game. Have a beer buff. Chill.

  3. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Oh brother....
    4. It would give Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes an actual class to play that matches their theme, and it would represent the steampunk side of Warcraft, which is ever apparent in the game world.
    Why would it only be Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes? You yourself have suggested differently in the past - what changed? You say it like its a fact, and yet have pushed for numerous other races to have tinkers as well?

  4. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And unless otherwise stated, gameplay is lore.
    No, it's the other way around, Teriz.

    So yes, lorewise classes and professions aren't the same thing. Gameplay bears out that difference perfectly.
    Wrong. Gameplay is not lore, and lore is not gameplay. It's astounding how such a simple concept eludes you. There are a bajillion things in the gameplay that makes absolutely no logical sense to exist in the lore. Basic logic and basic narrative logic show that gameplay is not lore.

    Yes, because we have LORE to counter the gameplay convention.
    We do? I'll do a Teriz: show me where in the lore it says that the paladins, mages and monks in the Battle for Dazar'alor raid are weaker than our player characters. Taht Ra'wani Kanae is weaker than the player. That Ma'ra Grimfang is weaker than the player. That Anathos Firecaller is weaker than the player.

    Which means that he was retroactively made into a Monk hero.
    Which means he was not a monk before, therefore we had absolutely no lore monk hero before MoP to base a monk class from, and your original argument was:
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except there are no known Necromancer or Bard heroes.
    By your logic that you just wrote, we can just "retroactively" make an existing character into a bard, or necromancer.

    You're picking apart the meaning of words when we're reaching the same conclusion. That's semantics.
    No. We're not reaching the same conclusion. Your conclusion is that classes come from WC3 abilities, and my conclusion is that classes come from concepts that can come from any media, inside or outside the Warcraft franchise.

    And we have Paladins, Mages, Warriors, Shaman, etc. that sell items too. What's your point?
    My point is that those examples I mentioned shoot down your "tinkers are adventurers, engineers are vendors" argument.

    Like I said, its unclear whether or not Gazlowe built his mech, but Mekkatorque and Blackfuse did. More than likely given the way Blizzard is pushing his character, it will be established that he built his own mech in the very near future.
    Come to think of it, if you analyze Gazlowe in the Island Expedition... he appears to not be a tinker at all. Because, other than "X-plodium Charge", which is no different than the bombs the engineer profession make (and could be argued he could have bought those bombs), the only other ability Gazlowe has, outside his mech, is "throw scrap". Doesn't look very "tinkerish" to become basically useless without their mech, and looks like a lot like someone who lost their only weapon.

    The lore is the gameplay.
    No, lore is not gameplay, and game play is not lore. As I said in a different thread (which you ignored):
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    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.
    So, do you hold all that as "canon lore", too? Also funny how you stopped responding to me after I posted that list, too. It's such a coincidence, huh? One might think it's causation rather than correlation...

    Sure you did.
    You ignoring the explanation does not mean it didn't happen.
    Last edited by Ielenia; 2020-07-27 at 04:03 AM.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  5. #445
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Right, so the Tinker isn't the Tony Stark of Warcraft. It's the Rocket Raccoon of Warcraft because Tinkers are short dudes who make weapons and like to blow stuff up. That's the fantasy of the Tinker.
    Mekkatorque is the king of the Gnomes (and he even has an arc reactor in his chest now). Blackfuse ran an entire company. Gazlowe owns Rachet and leads his own team.

    That sounds more like Tony Stark.

    As for fulfilling a Tinker identity, Engineering doesn't have to fulfill that at all. Right now, Tinker is synonymous with Engineer, and is typically viewed as a subset of the broader Engineer role. Like I said in previous posts, Engineers build anything-everything, while Tinkers that we've seen so far only make combat-viable weaponry.
    Well yeah it does. A profession can't fill the job of a class. Mekkatorque, Gazlowe, and similar characters are using class-style abilities. They're not using profession toys. Further, the Tinker abilities from HotS and WC3 are completely absent from the profession, so you can't even pretend to be the Tinker from WC3. In short, if you want to be like Mekkatorque on Broken Shore, or Gazlowe fighting demon in Durator, you can't, because the profession doesn't allow you to.

    A class would.

    Which is odd really since Tinkers in real life meaning were tradesmen who repaired pots and pans and other trinkets and went around selling and trading their goods. They were as far removed from combat as your typical merchant.
    Fortunately we're talking about Warcraft, not real life.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    Why would it only be Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes? You yourself have suggested differently in the past - what changed? You say it like its a fact, and yet have pushed for numerous other races to have tinkers as well?
    Because Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes are heavily invested in technology to the point where they're nearly out of place. Other races are not.

  6. #446
    I don't hate tinkers, it's just that their design space is already occupied by professions. It's the same reason why I wouldn't expect to ever see an alchemist or enchanter class. Blizzard has assigned some class concepts to the profession space, that's just how it is. Expecting a profession to become a class is a bit of a pipe dream imo.

  7. #447
    Elemental Lord Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    8,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    1.) Engineering profession already exists for all classes.
    2.) They don't explicitly exist in the lore, past or present.
    3.) The gameplay would be an instant meme.
    4.) Having Tinkerers doesn't really add anything to the mythos of the game into the future. Deathknights got a whisper of relevance in Legion and are only just now relevant again in Shadowlands after 10 years. (Monks have been irrelevant since MoP, DHs since Legion...)
    5.) Presumably limited to Goblins and Gnomes; Alliance advantage.

    The only pro that I see would be the possibility of adding two or more ranged specs to the game, which is something the game desperately needs. RANGED DPS PLAYERS HAVE NOT HAD A NEW CLASS SINCE VANILLA BLIZZARD.

    My vote instead of Tinkerer?
    1.) Spell Breaker (Belf) / Battle Mage (Voids) - Mails armor, ranged via thrown glaives, animated weapons, wands and staves depending on spec. Possible tank spec with shields, possible healing spec with buffs, spell steals and spell building.
    2.) Necromancer - Post Shadowlands momentum, scourge related. Shadowlands could make the class viable if the expansion absolves the pariah state they currently are in along with being very few in number. (But like DHs in Legion, had discovered numbers through Legion, there's many necromancers in the Shadowlands.)
    3.) Chronomancer - just give me a time mage please. Could have a full bronze dragonflight - becomes mortal, choose your race theme. If you want the steam punk vibe, go heavy with the clock theme.
    1.) Engineering is a profession that crafts things not a class...I can't honestly think you play WoW if you don't know the difference
    2.) They've been in the games since the RTS
    3.) If you say so
    4.) You can say that for most of the classes in game
    5.) How does it give Alliance a advantage?

    1.) So you basically just want to make them into something they're totally not...and you complain about Tinker being bad?
    2.) Could be covered by a 4th spec of DK
    3.) Once again could be covered in a 4th spec unless you think they're gonna let you play as a Dragon in WoW
    #WithoutRespectWeReject

  8. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Because Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes are heavily invested in technology to the point where they're nearly out of place. Other races are not.
    Last I checked, Gnomes and Goblins didn't have Spaceships to travel the Universe with....

    That was the Draenei, and I mean, their capital is literally half a chunk of crashed spaceship...

    so shouldn't they be Tinkerers too?

    I mean, sure, goblins and gnomes have made some cool stuff, but until they can create inter-galaxy teleportation Space ships, they ain't got what it takes.
    Last edited by PrivateSmiley; 2020-07-27 at 04:15 AM.

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by rhrrngt View Post
    I really don't understand a community that hates variety so much. A technical based class with steampunk vibes is usually a staple in many fantasy games and its a clear missing component in WoW despite the myriad of technologies the world offers. Yet anytime someone suggests a desire for the class or even comes up with creative ways to implement it half the community it seems nearly has a stroke with the amount of rage they bring.
    I mean in reality it doesn't have to be called tinkerer, but i do think the game would benefit from a class that embodies a mechanical steam punk type vibe.
    The idea would lose its luster pretty quickly. It'd just become a meta-game of making sure you keep your robots functioning. constantly repairing your dps/healbots doesn't sound like engaging content

  10. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post

    Because Gnomes, Goblins, and Mechagnomes are heavily invested in technology to the point where they're nearly out of place. Other races are not.
    So you no longer think it should be:

    Races:
    Alliance: Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Draenei
    Horde: Goblins, Blood Elves, Orcs Undead,

    Possibly Pandaren

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinpachi View Post
    The idea would lose its luster pretty quickly. It'd just become a meta-game of making sure you keep your robots functioning. constantly repairing your dps/healbots doesn't sound like engaging content
    This is the issue with turrets and pets - if they are entirely passive, they are boring and take away from skilled play. If they require a lot of micro managing, they are also boring - Blizzard have spoken about this at length with both wow, and Overwatch in particular where they completely redesigned Torbjörn for this exact reason.

  11. #451
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, it's the other way around, Teriz.
    Then where's the lore? And no sorry, but your "logic" doesn't count as lore, it counts as head canon.


    There are a bajillion things in the gameplay that makes absolutely no logical sense to exist in the lore. Basic logic and basic narrative logic show that gameplay is not lore.
    This is an example of head canon.


    We do? I'll do a Teriz: show me where in the lore it says that the paladins, mages and monks in the Battle for Dazar'alor raid are weaker than our player characters.
    Again, the player Paladin for example replaces Tirion as the Highlord of all Paladins. The player is even called "The Light's Greatest champion". You think a random Z Troll Paladin is more powerful? Okay.

    Which means he was not a monk before, therefore we had absolutely no lore monk hero before MoP to base a monk class from, and your original argument was:

    By your logic that you just wrote, we can just "retroactively" make an existing character into a bard, or necromancer.
    That's right. And unlike Stormstout, there's no Warcraft heroes floating around that you can make into a Necromancer or Bard hero.

    No. We're not reaching the same conclusion. Your conclusion is that classes come from WC3 abilities, and my conclusion is that classes come from concepts that can come from any media, inside or outside the Warcraft franchise.
    The point is that the abilities shown by Tinkers aren't designed to be sold in shops like the profession abilities are. Those abilities are designed to be used to perform the duties of a class. That's the point. But by all means, continue playing semantic games.


    My point is that those examples I mentioned shoot down your "tinkers are adventurers, engineers are vendors" argument.
    Except profession engineers are vendors. That's the entire purpose. That's why you roll into engineering. You don't roll a Mage to sell items in a shop. Nor would you roll a technology class to sell items in a shop. Thats not the purpose of a class.

    Come to think of it, if you analyze Gazlowe in the Island Expedition... he appears to not be a tinker at all. Because, other than "X-plodium Charge", which is no different than the bombs the engineer profession make (and could be argued he could have bought those bombs), the only other ability Gazlowe has, outside his mech, is "throw scrap". Doesn't look very "tinkerish" to become basically useless without their mech, and looks like a lot like someone who lost their only weapon.
    I wasn't aware that engineering made bombs with a 6 second cool down. Care to link to it?

    BTW, he also has Deth Lazor, which was an ability in HotS.

    No, lore is not gameplay, and game play is not lore.
    Again, gameplay is the stand in for lore until lore is established or contradicts it.

    And no, lore isn't your personal "logic" being applied to gameplay.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by FossilFree View Post
    I don't hate tinkers, it's just that their design space is already occupied by professions. It's the same reason why I wouldn't expect to ever see an alchemist or enchanter class. Blizzard has assigned some class concepts to the profession space, that's just how it is. Expecting a profession to become a class is a bit of a pipe dream imo.
    Except professions and classes don't share design space, and the Tinker is based on the WC3 hero, just like the last three expansion classes were.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PrivateSmiley View Post
    Last I checked, Gnomes and Goblins didn't have Spaceships to travel the Universe with....

    That was the Draenei, and I mean, their capital is literally half a chunk of crashed spaceship...

    so shouldn't they be Tinkerers too?

    I mean, sure, goblins and gnomes have made some cool stuff, but until they can create inter-galaxy teleportation Space ships, they ain't got what it takes.
    And their technology is pretty much crystals, and is very magical in nature. Your typical Draenei is either a magic user or a Paladin. The Lightforged Warframe was actually a departure from their standard tech, and it simply isn't shown throughout the race.

    Gnome and Goblins are almost always in mech suits and using gizmos. Both their racial leaders pilot mechs, and Mechagnomes are cyborgs.

  12. #452
    Tbh; I would prefer they pump up professions to max and make enginering the "utility"-prof again.
    Make more slots aviable for tinkering om gear, not just belts.

    Dont make me choose between nitro-boost and knockback for example
    Make it so it shares Cd with trinkets/potions

  13. #453
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    So you no longer think it should be:

    Races:
    Alliance: Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Draenei
    Horde: Goblins, Blood Elves, Orcs Undead,

    Possibly Pandaren
    No. Due to the nature of the class, I simply don't see Blizzard being able to give each race their own technology. Limiting it to Mechagnomes, Gnomes and Goblins allows all three races to get their own unique take on technology.

  14. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Except by all accounts, the Tinker wouldn't use pets. At most they would use summons (i.e. Turrets). If they're mech-based, which is indicative from the Tinker heroes and what we've seen in WoW, then their source of damage will be them, not pets.
    It is the same concept, they are still in the pet class. So now actually address the comment, if you can. A Warlock is a pet class even though their pets are demons, Death Knights are a pet class even though they are undead summons. Tinkers would be a pet class but all of their damage would come from pets.

  15. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by Kithelle View Post
    2.) They've been in the games since the RTS
    Last seen in WC3 Frozen Throne expansion tavern. They don't exist in WoW. For all we know there was one and he died in combat.
    Using this as an argument, we may as well freely drop in Dark Rangers, Goblin Alchemists, Fire Lords, Sea Witches and Pit Lords to the playable class roster as well.


    Hell, Dark Rangers have a better chance at being a class than Tinkerers. Blizz could add them in tandem with a Warden counterpart for Alliance (missed BfA opportunity.)

  16. #456
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaelexi View Post
    It is the same concept, they are still in the pet class. So now actually address the comment, if you can. A Warlock is a pet class even though their pets are demons, Death Knights are a pet class even though they are undead summons. Tinkers would be a pet class but all of their damage would come from pets.
    So do you think that Totems or Monk statues are pets?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    Last seen in WC3 Frozen Throne expansion tavern. They don't exist in WoW.
    The Tinker's Union in Undermine suggests otherwise.

  17. #457
    Fluffy Kitten GothamCity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Gotham
    Posts
    4,978
    I don't hate tinkers. I am pretty 'meh' about them. I don't really see many people 'hating' them either. I think most people come from the same place as myself: we play WoW for high fantasy, D&D/LotR style. I am already pretty 'meh' about guns/engineering/technology in the game. It kind of kills the fantasy as standard guns are miles beyond the power of bows and crossbows. Realistically, no one but fighters with guns should exist as even wizards would likely die in a single well-placed shot.

    I'd be fine with them adding a Tinker, but it wouldn't be for me and I wouldn't play it. I don't really care for DH either (power issues and lack of identity). If WoW was designed to cater to me, I think the game is missing the archer and summoner archetypes. Hunters are really not archers, they're a pet class with poisons, bombs, traps, tracking etc, that uses a bow as a second thought. They're really a beast master and survivalist put together (ergo their specs...). Marksman is OK but it has only really appealed to that archetype in the last few years and it is lacking since it's an optional talent choice and still doesn't really embrace that fantasy. We have nothing that focuses on summoning swarms of minions either.

    I'd add an archer/ranger and a necromancer. Other summoning based classes exist of course, but I feel 'death caster' isn't really filled anywhere. Warlock is more about shadow/fel/fire. So a necromancer could fill both niches. An archer/ranger class should purely work with ranged weapons and be all about empowering them, marksmanship, skilled shots, etc. Could have a spec that focuses on high skilled shots, a spec that dual-wields ranged weapons and fires them in a frenzy, and then the first ranged tank.

    But alas, WoW is not made only for me, so I doubt we'll see these.
    "Okay, Robin. Together, we're gonna punch these guys so hard, words describing the impact are gonna spontaneously materialize out of thin air."
    - Lego Batman

  18. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by Bwonsamdi the Dead View Post
    True. This game could use another ranged dps caster
    That really goes in the realm of "head canon" you envision a Tinker to be.

    The reason why Tinkers are such a good idea is that they have a whole untapped theme in classes that would make them unique and they can fill any role you want them to. The design is up to blizzard, but, for example, in the island expedition Gazlowe team (and i guess on the gnome equivalent) the DPS character is ranged.
    The thing is tinker fit all roles. Could tank with a mech, could heal with bots, can dps in melee with the backpack that Gazlowe has in heroes, can range dps with a gun and they can deploy turrets.

    With Tinker, blizzard can literally do whatever roles they want. There is that much material to tap from. So, it is totally possible for tinker to have a ranged dps spec. Of course, it's not a caster per se, but we do have more of those than say ranged "physical dps".
    Last edited by Swnem; 2020-07-27 at 05:00 AM.

  19. #459
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So do you think that Totems or Monk statues are pets?

    - - - Updated - - -



    The Tinker's Union in Undermine suggests otherwise.
    Oh, so you mean engineers. Got it.

    Edit: *Goblin Engineers
    Last edited by Elestia; 2020-07-27 at 05:03 AM.

  20. #460
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    Oh, so you mean engineers. Got it.

    Edit: *Goblin Engineers
    Well no, Tinkers. All Tinkers are engineers, but all engineers are not Tinkers.

    Just like all Paladins are warriors, but all warriors are not Paladins.

Posting Permissions

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