Page 24 of 52 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
34
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Then where's the lore? And no sorry, but your "logic" doesn't count as lore, it counts as head canon.
    And gameplay and game mechanics are not lore. Simple as that. Gameplay and game mechanics are simply a window which allows us limited interaction with the fictional universe of Warcraft.

    This is an example of head canon.
    No, Teriz. This is an example of basic logic. What you are doing is headcanon.

    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.
    It's what the game (You know, that thing you hold in such high regard regarding lore...) shows us.

    That's right. And unlike Stormstout, there's no Warcraft heroes floating around that you can make into a Necromancer or Bard hero.
    Bard: Russell Brower. Russell the Bard. Lorewalker Cho. Brann Bronzebeard.
    Necromancer: Thule Ravenclaw. Instructor Malicia. Maleki the Palid. And hell: Illidan was brought back from the dead, so the precedent exists to bring back dead necromancers.

    The point is that the abilities shown by Tinkers aren't designed to be sold in shops like the profession abilities are.
    This is an arbitrary distinction. A rocket that a tinker creates is no different than a rocket an engineer creates. A mech an engineer creates is not different than a mech a tinker creates. A tinker can decide to sell the rocket they created instead of using it, just like an engineer can decide to use the rocket they created instead of selling it.

    Except profession engineers are vendors.
    Wrong. Objectively wrong. Because not only I liked to you examples of adventurer engineers, but you also failed to show any lore evidence that "tinker" is an adventurer and "engineer" is the vendor, despite THE GAME (You know, that thing you hold in such high regard regarding lore...) showing otherwise.

    I wasn't aware that engineering made bombs with a 6 second cool down. Care to link to it?
    Engineers make bombs that deal fire damage and stun. "Cooldowns" are simply gameplay mechanics for balance.

    BTW, he also has Deth Lazor, which was an ability in HotS.
    Wrong. His mech has "death lazor". Not Gazlowe. Because he never uses that ability outside the mech.

    Again, gameplay is the stand in for lore until lore is established or contradicts it.
    So you're saying that all this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    • 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 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 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.
    Is canon lore?

    And no, lore isn't your personal "logic" being applied to gameplay.
    Teriz, it's not "my personal logic". It's basic logic. The same logic that we use in our day-to-day lives. The same logic that is used to bring consistency to fictional worlds. There is no such thing as "real life logic". There is just logic. Simple as that.

    You love to tout that "logic works differently" in the Warcraft universe... yet you haven't shown a single example of that in the lore.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  2. #462
    Elemental Lord Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    8,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    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.)
    High Tinker Mekkatorque says hello, same with Master Tinker Trini, the Mechagon Tinkerers, and many more.
    #WithoutRespectWeReject

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    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.
    I only ask because it was you that suggested those races in a previous thread.

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    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.
    But apparently all Tinkerers are goblin engineers, correct?

    Every class in the game can be an engineer. Only goblin engineers may affiliate with the Tinkerer's Union which is a faction that operates much like the Venture Company.

    The Tinkerer's Union is a commercial union for Goblin engineers, NOT Tinkerer hero units as seen in WC3 FT.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kithelle View Post
    High Tinker Mekkatorque says hello, same with Master Tinker Trini, the Mechagon Tinkerers, and many more.
    Oh, gnome engineers. Got it.

    Mekkatorque is literally the sole example / what might actually get close to a WC3 tinkerer. Maybe Gallywix.
    Last edited by Elestia; 2020-07-27 at 05:37 AM.

  5. #465
    engineers are professions because they are professionals where a tinker is just an amateur doing some stuff here & there with that he/she has available.
    a new adventurer could never be a "Tinker" because he'd never have the means to build his needed tech.
    you CAN'T have a tinker with perma mech, it'd need to make a whole new equipment class : mech parts. SWTOR has something like that at it's launch for droids partners, which was never reused for any extensions past the 1st one, you couldn't gear your robot partners past a basic level and you had to craft it.
    and if you need a "WC3 tinker" class to much, then you need a "WC3 goblin alchemist" just as much no ?
    the WC3 tinker hero was made into a profession, just as the alchemist one, and no matter how much you post anywere, you'll never change this.
    there are lots of stuff I'd want myself in the game, and it's not coming anytime soon™, make peace with that quickly because you'll only tire yourself and disgust anyone still willing to read any post you infest.

  6. #466
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And gameplay and game mechanics are not lore. Simple as that. Gameplay and game mechanics are simply a window which allows us limited interaction with the fictional universe of Warcraft.
    And the gameplay is how we interact with the lore of the game, and the game is considered canon lore by Blizzard.

    Saying that "your logic" is true lore, and what we're experiencing in the game doesn't count is the hallmark of head canon.

    Like I said, please produce some official lore from Blizzard that counters what we're experiencing in the game, then you'll have an argument. Until then, you don't.


    It's what the game (You know, that thing you hold in such high regard regarding lore...) shows us.
    No, that's actually a gameplay convention because players have to have enemies that provide a challenge in new content. For example, a random elite in BFA isn't more powerful than Black Temple Illidan in Lore, even though via game mechanics, the 120 elite would kill him pretty quickly.

    Bard: Russell Brower. Russell the Bard. Lorewalker Cho. Brann Bronzebeard.
    Necromancer: Thule Ravenclaw. Instructor Malicia. Maleki the Palid. And hell: Illidan was brought back from the dead, so the precedent exists to bring back dead necromancers.
    None of those are hero characters.

    This is an arbitrary distinction. A rocket that a tinker creates is no different than a rocket an engineer creates. A mech an engineer creates is not different than a mech a tinker creates. A tinker can decide to sell the rocket they created instead of using it, just like an engineer can decide to use the rocket they created instead of selling it.
    Again, this is semantics, and it's getting tiring. A Tinker is a type of engineer, this is true. However EVERY engineer is not a Tinker. So your statement here is categorically false. Obviously an engineer with the engineering profession can't create a mech. It can build a mech from schematics and instructions, but it cannot create one like Blackfuse did with the Iron Reaver, or Mekkatorque did with his mech. Once again, the game shows us a clear difference in ability, and you're purposely choosing to ignore it.

    Wrong. Objectively wrong. Because not only I liked to you examples of adventurer engineers, but you also failed to show any lore evidence that "tinker" is an adventurer and "engineer" is the vendor, despite THE GAME (You know, that thing you hold in such high regard regarding lore...) showing otherwise.
    Is Gazlowe an adventurer? Yes or no.

    Engineers make bombs that deal fire damage and stun. "Cooldowns" are simply gameplay mechanics for balance.
    But why would engineering bombs need longer cool downs? Wildfire Bomb within the Hunter class has 2 charges and only an 18 second cool down that can be reduced when they use Carve. Why do Hunters have better bombs than an engineer, especially if your argument is that they're the "same" as a Tinker.

    Wrong. His mech has "death lazor". Not Gazlowe. Because he never uses that ability outside the mech.
    Neither does the HotS hero. However, since its his mech, and he's piloting it, its still an ability that he's using.


    So you're saying that all this:

    Is canon lore?
    Unless there's lore to contradict it, yes.


    Teriz, it's not "my personal logic". It's basic logic. The same logic that we use in our day-to-day lives. The same logic that is used to bring consistency to fictional worlds. There is no such thing as "real life logic". There is just logic. Simple as that.
    Again, the minute where you start putting your own spin on something in the game because it's not spelled out for you, you're doing head canon. So yes, the minute you start saying that your character sleeps, or eats, or whatever, you are performing head canon.

    You still never answered my question.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    I only ask because it was you that suggested those races in a previous thread.
    I did. My opinion has evolved over time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    But apparently all Tinkerers are goblin engineers, correct?
    Nope. Blizzard expanded them to Gnomes in WoW.

    Every class in the game can be an engineer. Only goblin engineers may affiliate with the Tinkerer's Union which is a faction that operates much like the Venture Company.

    The Tinkerer's Union is a commercial union for Goblin engineers, NOT Tinkerer hero units as seen in WC3 FT.
    No, the Tinker's union is a organization of Tinkers that build machines and weaponry. It's pretty obvious that the Goblin Tinker would have been part of the Goblin's Tinker union.

    And yeah, every class can pick up the engineering profession. It won't make them into a Tinker. Just like picking up the enchanter profession won't make you into a Mage.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeenith View Post
    the WC3 tinker hero was made into a profession, just as the alchemist one, and no matter how much you post anywere, you'll never change this.
    there are lots of stuff I'd want myself in the game, and it's not coming anytime soon™, make peace with that quickly because you'll only tire yourself and disgust anyone still willing to read any post you infest.
    Yeah, false. None of the WC3 Tinker hero's abilities exist in the profession. Neither does the Alchemist's. The professions come from the item shop system in WC3. They have nothing to do with the hero units or their abilities which went ENTIRELY went into the class lineup.

    FYI: Every WC3 hero has had their abilities either in name or function appear in the class lineup of WoW EXCEPT the Tinker and Alchemist. This being the case, it stands to reason that at some point, the Tinker and Alchemist's abilities will end up in the class lineup as well.
    Last edited by Teriz; 2020-07-27 at 01:21 PM.

  7. #467
    Elemental Lord Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    8,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Elestia View Post
    But apparently all Tinkerers are goblin engineers, correct?

    Every class in the game can be an engineer. Only goblin engineers may affiliate with the Tinkerer's Union which is a faction that operates much like the Venture Company.

    The Tinkerer's Union is a commercial union for Goblin engineers, NOT Tinkerer hero units as seen in WC3 FT.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Oh, gnome engineers. Got it.

    Mekkatorque is literally the sole example / what might actually get close to a WC3 tinkerer. Maybe Gallywix.
    Could have just named him High Engineer...named all the other Tinker based characters Engineers, but they didn't...sorry you have so much irrational hate for a class others want but facts are facts.

    There are also plenty of other examples of mech riding characters.
    #WithoutRespectWeReject

  8. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post


    Engineers don't create anything. They build devices from schematics and blueprints. Tinkers actually invent their devices.



    Because there are no abilities within the engineering profession.



    Gameplay also trumps head canon. The game makes it pretty clear that there's a difference between what profession engineers can do, and what individuals like Mekkatorque can do. Further I didn't create anything in my head. The entire Tinker concept that I talk about comes from Blizzard.



    He's referenced as a Tinker in HotS, and he had those abilities in WoW. If he has Tinker abilities, then he's obviously a Tinker. WoW not smashing you over the head and calling him a Tinker doesn't change that.
    So Tinkers would invent everything themselves? So they are going to run around with nuts, bolts, steal, etc and craft a mech on the spot from their mind and no two mechs will be similar? Why do people like Jastor Gallywix and other non techies pilot mechs in the game???? The game makes it clear that people other than "tinkers" can and do pilot mechs. And why are there a ton of npcs called tinkers in WoW and most use none of the abilities you claim they do?

    It's your head cannon that an ability is somehow different from a profession item. In lore Tinkers can't just magically fabricate shit from their mind. What I said wasn't head cannon but fact just because it hurts your feelings doesn't make it untrue.

    And Stukov shoots diseases and has a ridiculously massive arm which isn't even remotely close to his abilities in Starcraft 2. It's almost like Hots is an entirely separate universe where they fuck around with people to make them more unique. If he was a tinker why doesn't he have the clawpack he has in Hots?? Why do you constantly cherry pick 1 "fact" out of a million to support you claim then ignore everything else that proves you wrong?
    Last edited by qwerty123456; 2020-07-27 at 06:30 AM.

  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And the gameplay is how we interact with the lore of the game, and the game is considered canon lore by Blizzard.

    Saying that "your logic" is true lore, and what we're experiencing in the game doesn't count is the hallmark of head canon.

    Like I said, please produce some official lore from Blizzard that counters what we're experiencing in the game, then you'll have an argument. Until then, you don't.




    No, that's actually a gameplay convention because players have to have enemies that provide a challenge in new content. For example, a random elite in BFA isn't more powerful than Black Temple Illidan in Lore, even though via game mechanics, the 120 elite would kill him pretty quickly.



    None of those are hero characters. Let me know when any of them pop up in Heroes of the Storm.




    Again, this is semantics, and it's getting tiring. A Tinker is a type of engineer, this is true. However EVERY engineer is not a Tinker. So your statement here is categorically false. Obviously an engineer with the engineering profession can't create a mech. It can build a mech from schematics and instructions, but it cannot create one like Blackfuse did with the Iron Reaver, or Mekkatorque did with his mech. Once again, the game shows us a clear difference in ability, and you're purposely choosing to ignore it.



    Is Gazlowe an adventurer? Yes or no.



    But why would engineering bombs need longer cool downs? Wildfire Bomb within the Hunter class has 2 charges and only an 18 second cool down that can be reduced when they use Carve. Why do Hunters have better bombs than an engineer, especially if your argument is that they're the "same" as a Tinker.



    Neither does the HotS hero. However, since its his mech, and he's piloting it, its still an ability that he's using.




    Unless there's lore to contract it, yes.




    Again, the minute where you start putting your own spin on something in the game because it's not spelled out for you, you're doing head canon. So yes, the minute you start saying that your character sleeps, or eats, or whatever, you are performing head canon.



    And you never answered my question. So consider us even.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I did. My opinion has evolved over time.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Nope. Blizzard expanded them to Gnomes in WoW.



    No, the Tinker's union is a organization of Tinkers that build machines and weaponry. It's pretty obvious that the Goblin Tinker would have been part of the Goblin's Tinker union.

    And yeah, every class can pick up the engineering profession. It won't make them into a Tinker. Just like picking up the enchanter profession won't make you into a Mage.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yeah, false. None of the WC3 Tinker hero's abilities exist in the profession. Neither does the Alchemist's. The professions come from the item shop system in WC3. They have nothing to do with the hero units or their abilities which went ENTIRELY went into the class lineup.

    FYI: Every WC3 hero has had their abilities either in name or function appear in the class lineup of WoW EXCEPT the Tinker and Alchemist. This being the case, it stands to reason that at some point, the Tinker and Alchemist's abilities will end up in the class lineup as well.
    You're not a class designer. You've never been a class designer. You will never be a class designer. Your concept is garbage, your arguments are garbage, your I'm-right-you're-wrong-nya-nya attitude reminds me of the little fat kid on the school yard that wanted to be Goku while everyone else was playing Lord of the Rings, and last but not least, you spew the same shit constantly, like a broken record.

    You'll never get your shit class, and thank fuck for that.

  10. #470
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    1. So Tinkers would invent everything themselves? 2. So they are going to run around with nuts, bolts, steal, etc and craft a mech on the spot from their mind and no two mechs will be similar? 3. Why do people like Jastor Gallywix and other non techies pilot mechs in the game???? 4. The game makes it clear that people other than "tinkers" can and do pilot mechs. 5. And why are there a ton of npcs called tinkers in WoW and most use none of the abilities you claim they do?
    1. Lore wise yes.
    2. Like Iron Man they’ll have their inventions ready to go before they start adventuring.
    3. Gallywix had his mech specially built for him.
    4. Like who?
    5. Same reason there were Monks in WoW before MoP who didn’t have Keg Smash, SEF, or Breath of Fire.


    1. It's your head cannon that an ability is somehow different from a profession item. 2. In lore Tinkers can't just magically fabricate shit from their mind. 3. What I said wasn't head cannon but fact just because it hurts your feelings doesn't make it untrue.
    1. Uh no, it’s a literal fact that an item and an ability are two entirely different things in WoW.
    2. Thats what inventors do.
    3. Saying that professions are the same as classes and ignoring evidence to the contrary isn’t head canon, it’s being obtuse.

    And Stukov shoots diseases and has a ridiculously massive arm which isn't even remotely close to his abilities in Starcraft 2. It's almost like Hots is an entirely separate universe where they fuck around with people to make them more unique. If he was a tinker why doesn't he have the clawpack he has in Hots?? Why do you constantly cherry pick 1 "fact" out of a million to support you claim then ignore everything else that proves you wrong?
    Except the HotS abilities have shown up in WoW on multiple occasions, so while it isn’t lore, Blizzard DOES pull abilities and concepts from HotS and uses them for WoW. This includes Gazlowe’s Tinker abilities.

    Why doesn’t he have his Claw Pack from WC3 and HotS? Probably the same reason Death Knights were using Warlock and Warrior abilities before WotLK; Blizzard hasn’t implemented it into WoW yet.

  11. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post


    1. Uh no, it’s a literal fact that an item and an ability are two entirely different things in WoW.
    It's literal a fact that from a technological PoV the engine doesnt give a shit why it should trigger a specific effect.

    Also, paladins are not warriors, warriors are not paladins, because those words have specific meanings in WoW. Unlike tinker.
    A witty saying proves nothing.
    -Voltaire
    winning
    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    That tends to happens when your race lacks a class that closely mirrors it's racial lore.


    Something we can't play as.....
    People do not like Gnome and goblins for more the that.
    1. The change of camera perspective. Playing a gnome or goblin or vulpera really changes how you see the world.
    2. They are ugly. No one like playing an ugly race that seems weak.
    3.Vulpera have been quite popular, they also do not have a "Class" that matches thier lore.

  13. #473
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    It's literal a fact that from a technological PoV the engine doesnt give a shit why it should trigger a specific effect.
    I think we should really stop pretending that avatars in a video game are real people who have thoughts and feelings, and just look at the mechanics itself. Mechanically speaking, using an item is not the same thing as using a class ability.

    Also, paladins are not warriors, warriors are not paladins, because those words have specific meanings in WoW. Unlike tinker.
    From Blizzard:

    Paragons of Justice
    This is the call of the paladin: to protect the weak, to bring justice to the unjust, and to vanquish evil from the darkest corners of the world. These holy warriors are equipped with plate armor so they can confront the toughest of foes, and the blessing of the Light allows them to heal wounds and, in some cases, even restore life to the dead.
    https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/game/classes/paladin

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLisanna View Post
    People do not like Gnome and goblins for more the that.
    1. The change of camera perspective. Playing a gnome or goblin or vulpera really changes how you see the world.
    2. They are ugly. No one like playing an ugly race that seems weak.
    3.Vulpera have been quite popular, they also do not have a "Class" that matches thier lore.
    1. Mechs take care of that. A Goblin or Gnome in mech form should be as large as a Tauren or Draenei in plate armor.
    2. This is your opinion.
    3. Actually quite a few classes fit the Vulpera, since they are scavengers and nomads. That allows them to blend into anything. Starting a Vulpera Warrior in a desert hut is a bit different than starting a Goblin Warrior in a city with robots, highways, and cars.

  14. #474
    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.
    hate is a strong word, most players are just thinking like teens (despite being over 30) and therefore always sound edgy/absolute etc, so their disagreement sounds like 'hatred'

    but yeah many people don't like the tinker idea at all, why?

    -goblins and gnomes: pure comedy stuff and not that funny either

    -it messes up the medieval epic flavour of the game, imo there's already too much technology in this game, it would be better with less or soon we will no longer be able to justify swords and bows

    -a flying mechasuit packed with rockets, machine guns, flamethrowers, grenades and lasers? please, those stuff are absurd even in sci-fi settings like i said above we're still using swords remember?

    -the demand to add new classes is both old and selfish, seriously we're tired of spoiled and entitled people that believe the game should spend resources in order to accomodate their every whim, all the core classes are there, in fact we didn't even need monks in the first place but whatever...

    -we have enough classes already, it would be wiser to spent the development time to enrich them rather than add new ones

  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    These holy warriors
    Quit playing semantics.

    The warrior class is a warrior, but a warrior is not the warrior class.

    The term vs the word.

    You might as well say that human warriors and human paladins are humans, therefore the warrior is a human who goes to wars unlike paladins who are humans who go to holy wars

    The class is called Paladin, not Holy Warrior.
    All right, gentlemen, let's review. The year is 2020 - that's two-zero-two-zero, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.

  16. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Quit playing semantics.
    You dont understand, his semantics are good, it's just others people's semantics that are meaningless.
    A witty saying proves nothing.
    -Voltaire
    winning
    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

  17. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well no, Tinkers. All Tinkers are engineers, but all engineers are not Tinkers.
    Apparently they aren't, since you, who holds gameplay as true lore, is a proponent of the idea of tinkers not knowing engineering, by saying you don't need to have the engineering profession.

    Which makes me wonder how do tinkers make their guns, robots, bombs, rockets, mechs... without knowing how to make one. That's like asking your accountant to perform heart transplant surgery...

    Just like all Paladins are warriors, but all warriors are not Paladins.
    False equivalence, as you're using the word "warrior" as the general name for those who fight, not as the class it self.
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  18. #478
    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.
    We already have engineers that have the steam punk vibe. We don't need anymore. I would rather have another edgelord class than rehashing engineering. I know people like to exaggerate but are people really having a stroke?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nizah View Post
    why so mad bro

  19. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by Velerios View Post
    Because there are around 20 classes that makes more sense and I (and probably others) would rather see implemented than tinker. Necromancer, Spellsword, Dark Ranger, Spellbreaker...; there are far more classes that are better than tinkerer: we have engineering for it, and i rather have an extension to it than a class around it. If they want, they could make Tinkerer an earnable spec from engineering, but it's own class? Nah.
    So you want a cloth DK, A melee mage, Emo Hunter, Magic Warrior. Tinker is a better idea then just making a new class on a 4th spec for what is already in the game: and i rather have them expand those prior classes then make a new a class around them. If they want, they could make your spec ideas an earnable spec from a quest, but its own class? Nah.

  20. #480
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Quit playing semantics.

    The warrior class is a warrior, but a warrior is not the warrior class.

    The term vs the word.

    You might as well say that human warriors and human paladins are humans, therefore the warrior is a human who goes to wars unlike paladins who are humans who go to holy wars

    The class is called Paladin, not Holy Warrior.
    And it's no different than when people purposely play semantics with engineer and Tinker.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    You dont understand, his semantics are good, it's just others people's semantics that are meaningless.
    No, both are meaningless. I brought up Paladin and warrior to show how meaningless it is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Apparently they aren't, since you, who holds gameplay as true lore, is a proponent of the idea of tinkers not knowing engineering, by saying you don't need to have the engineering profession.
    This is more of your head canon because you're assuming that the profession is the only type of engineering in WoW, or that you need to know the engineering profession in order to be an engineering genius.

    Which makes me wonder how do tinkers make their guns, robots, bombs, rockets, mechs... without knowing how to make one. That's like asking your accountant to perform heart transplant surgery...
    Again applying real world standards to a video game.

    False equivalence, as you're using the word "warrior" as the general name for those who fight, not as the class it self.
    Replace warrior with engineer and Paladin with Tinker. It's the same thing.

Posting Permissions

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