Page 26 of 52 FirstFirst ...
16
24
25
26
27
28
36
... LastLast
  1. #501
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    Floating continents are not equivalent to bombs generally falling sideways.
    Floating continents and land masses sort of defy logic.

    WC3 is part of the lore, yes. But tinker is not part of the WoW classes.
    Neither were Brewmasters, DKs, or Demon Hunters. Look where we are now.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That's true.

    And Tinkers had Engineering Upgrade, while every class has the ability to take up the Engineering Profession. That's how Tinkers have been represented in WoW thus far. Every Tinker is an Engineer. That's the legacy of WC3 lore as represented in WoW.
    And that's semantics. Again, the WC3 hero is nowhere to be found in the profession.

    A more likely conclusion is that the WC3 Tinker is in the same spot the Brewmaster/Monk was in before MoP: Waiting in wings.

  2. #502
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Floating continents and land masses sort of defy logic.



    Neither were Brewmasters, DKs, or Demon Hunters. Look where we are now.
    Yeah, casting fireballs also defies logic. But still, the concept of fire still is adhered to, it burns.

    Right now, we do not have a WoW tinkerers. And judging by its fanbase, we can finally answer the OP question. Because the advocates for tinkerers seems so obnoxious.
    A witty saying proves nothing.
    -Voltaire
    winning
    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

  3. #503
    As a Ranged main, I am tired of new Melee classes. Tinkers would be a Melee class, since all "Tinkers" shown in the lore so far were melee. So that's a big No for me.
    We each walk a line. Choose yours.

  4. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And that's semantics.
    Stop crying semantics every time someone says something you don't agree with.
    A witty saying proves nothing.
    -Voltaire
    winning
    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

  5. #505
    I’m gonna keep it simple.

    I think tinker class is a very stupid idea.

    That’s it. I don’t like it. Go play engineer. “But iTs noT enG” let me stop you right there. Yes it is. It is just an expanded engineer and I think it is stupid and flies against the face of “fantasy.”

    Don’t bother responding to this because tinker class is for the bums.

  6. #506
    Quote Originally Posted by deadhorse12 View Post

    Like how many dark ranger/spellbreaker threads are there?
    dark ranger/spellbreaker fans old enough to not spamming threads each day like madmen.

    But if you gonna say "Tinker" 3 times near mirror.... guess who gonna show up?
    I want these classes in new x-pac Necromancer,RuneMaster,Warden,BladeMaster,DarkRanger,Dragonsworn,Alchemist,Lich,Tinker

  7. #507
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    Yeah, casting fireballs also defies logic. But still, the concept of fire still is adhered to, it burns.
    Some forms of fire heal. Again, logic defying.

    Right now, we do not have a WoW tinkerers. And judging by its fanbase, we can finally answer the OP question. Because the advocates for tinkerers seems so obnoxious.
    Nah, Tinker advocates are viewed as obnoxious by people who can't construct good arguments against their inclusion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    Stop crying semantics every time someone says something you don't agree with.
    Someone purposely mixing the engineering profession and the Tinker class together without pointing out their differences is using semantics.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Weeps View Post
    I’m gonna keep it simple.

    I think tinker class is a very stupid idea.
    And there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I prefer that to people creating dishonest reasons that do nothing but end up showing a bias. I think these threads would go much better if people would just say that instead of making up silly stuff.

  8. #508
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Profession imbalance is very much an issue. Let's say for example you give Engineering all of the Tinker abilities and give them class-like power levels. No one would spec into any other profession because those additional abilities would give classes advantages over classes that don't spec into engineering. This happened with engineering before btw, and that's why Blizzard reduced its power levels in WotLk.
    Selective reading much?

    I'll repeat:
    Profession imbalance is a non-issue - they can go to WC3 heroes and take appropriate abilities from them and add them to all professions. Sheesh. That would actually make professions interesting and meaningful in end game. That would make a better game overall.
    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.

  9. #509
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Selective reading much?

    I'll repeat:
    Profession imbalance is a non-issue - they can go to WC3 heroes and take appropriate abilities from them and add them to all professions. Sheesh. That would actually make professions interesting and meaningful in end game. That would make a better game overall.
    And I'll repeat: Profession imbalance IS an issue. We know this because there was a profession imbalance favoring engineering in earlier iterations of WoW and Blizzard had to effectively nerf engineering's items to bring them in line with other professions. You slapping class abilities into multiple professions actually makes the game worse because you force players to level professions in order to be competitive, and it adds another layer of balancing that Blizzard has shown they don't want to deal with.

    BTW, they gave the professions unique abilities in MoP and they removed it immediately in WoD because again, it wasn't worth the balancing headache, and people didn't like it. Thus your argument that it would make the game better overall has been disproven by history.

  10. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Some forms of fire heal. Again, logic defying.



    Nah, Tinker advocates are viewed as obnoxious by people who can't construct good arguments against their inclusion.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Someone purposely mixing the engineering profession and the Tinker class together without pointing out their differences is using semantics.

    - - - Updated - - -



    And there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. I prefer that to people creating dishonest reasons that do nothing but end up showing a bias. I think these threads would go much better if people would just say that instead of making up silly stuff.
    I'm not even opposed to the idea of a tinker class. But after 2 days of nitpicking, cherrypicking, semantics denying and abusing, i'm very much opposed to the idea that anything should be made in your favor.

    Just because some things defy real world logic or physics does not mean that the Warcraft world has different basic concepts. Water is wet, the sky is blue, tinkers are not playable. You ranting about HotS or WC3 is just semantics.

    I'm still waiting for bombs to fall sideways.
    A witty saying proves nothing.
    -Voltaire
    winning
    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

  11. #511
    The pedantry of it all.

  12. #512
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    I'm not even opposed to the idea of a tinker class. But after 2 days of nitpicking, cherrypicking, semantics denying and abusing, i'm very much opposed to the idea that anything should be made in your favor.
    How mature of you....

    Just because some things defy real world logic or physics does not mean that the Warcraft world has different basic concepts. Water is wet, the sky is blue, tinkers are not playable. You ranting about HotS or WC3 is just semantics.
    And again, it's dumb to argue about real world logic in video games. You're talking about something that changes based on some writer at Blizzard where the real world doesn't work like that. Someone can't write something out of existence in reality, but they can write something out of or into existence in the game world.

    It's like saying that since Pandaria wasn't on any maps and Pandaren weren't seen in WoW until MoP they didn't exist on Azeroth until patch 5.0. Meanwhile they were in WC3 and mentioned in quests so clearly they existed, just like the Tinker.

    I'm stunned that I have to explain this.

  13. #513
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing '70 angry dudes on MMO champ' with 'half the community'.
    This cuts both ways, I hope you know.

    5 fanbois on mmo champ does not mean there is some dire need for another collection of vapid AP coefficients.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

  14. #514
    Personally, I am just sick to death of hearing about tinkers. I really wish the mods would make a tinker megathread and ban any other thread about them. I'm sure I am not alone in saying "the people who want tinker, ruined any desire I might have once had about them."

  15. #515
    Old God Mirishka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Get off my lawn!
    Posts
    10,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrospinach View Post
    This cuts both ways, I hope you know.

    5 fanbois on mmo champ does not mean there is some dire need for another collection of vapid AP coefficients.
    Feel free to show me the post where I said "most players want tinkerer".

    You can't, and you know why? Because I'm not a vapid idiot who thinks that my opinions speak for the majority of millions of people.
    My greatest fear is that one day, my MMO-Champion ignore list will run out of space.

  16. #516
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And that's semantics. Again, the WC3 hero is nowhere to be found in the profession.
    Why would the WC3 hero be found in the profession? We're talking about the use of Technology in the lore. Tinkers are Engineers in the lore, and we have access to the Engineering profession. That's lore.

    A more likely conclusion is that the WC3 Tinker is in the same spot the Brewmaster/Monk was in before MoP: Waiting in wings.
    It could be a playable class but it doesn't mean the lore hasn't already factored them into WoW. Tinkers are Engineers in the lore.

    Gazlowe, Mekkatorque and Blackfuse are Engineers in WoW. They may have different titles like High Tinker or Siegecrafter, but they're still Engineers.

    If you're going to talk about Tinker lore not being in the game, then you're making stuff up, because Engineering is clearly present in WoW and has plenty of lore tied to it. The lore of Gazlowe and WC3 Tinkers is adapted as Engineering in WoW; they all refer to the same thing. If we have a Tinker class introduced, then it would be abstracting a new specific identity out of what we already have, not representing something from WC3 that isn't already in WoW. We already have it in WoW.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-07-27 at 04:56 PM.

  17. #517
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Beach City
    Posts
    16,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Why would the WC3 hero be found in the profession? We're talking about the use of Technology in the lore. Tinkers are Engineers in the lore, and we have access to the Engineering profession. That's lore.
    If the argument is that the engineering profession = the WC3 Tinker, then we should see aspects of the latter within the profession. We don't.

    Also simply because the profession is the ONLY way to play with tech in WoW doesn't mean that it's the only way to do so in lore, nor is it intended by Blizzard to permanently be the only way players interact with tech in WoW.

    It could be a playable class but it doesn't mean the lore hasn't already factored them into WoW. Tinkers are Engineers in the lore.

    Gazlowe, Mekkatorque and Blackfuse are Engineers in WoW. They may have different titles like High Tinker or Siegecrafter, but they're still Engineers.
    There's the semantics again.

    If you're going to talk about Tinker lore not being in the game, then you're making stuff up, because Engineering is clearly present in WoW and has plenty of lore tied to it. If we have a Tinker class introduced, then it would be abstracting new lore out of what we already have, not representing something from WC3 that isn't already in WoW. We already have it in WoW.
    Except it wouldn't. The Tinker hero in WC3 is canon. The engineering profession doesn't represent the WC3 Tinker, so Blizzard bringing a class based on the Tinker hero from WC3 wouldn't be abstracting new lore, it would simply be bringing old lore into the game. This is no different than what they did with Pandaren, Brewmasters, and Pandaria.

  18. #518
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    If you're using someone else's schematics and instructions to build, you're not as technically advanced as the person who created the schematic.
    So what? Are you suggesting that devices built from schematics are automatically ineffective? Because that's just ludicrous.

    That's a gameplay concession, and it's not an issue because it's been used in the game before. For example, the Goblin player is a trade prince who gets his wealth taken by Gallywix. The player characters are leaders of their respective classes in legion.
    Leader =/= best. It means they're really good at what they do and are highly effective at applying their skills in battle but that doesn't automatically mean they are literally the best. They're leaders, which simply means they LEAD people, make decisions, are highly respected and bear the burden of leadership.

    I never said it would be a deal breaker. I'm merely pointing out the difference between a Warrior learning to make bombs from an instruction manual, and a mechanical genius who can make custom bombs powerful enough to rival the strongest magic.
    So, all the bombs, tanks and gadgets employed by the Iron Horde, that rival some of the strongest magic in power, were built on the fly by each of the orcs using them? The vast majority of the Iron Horde were mechanical geniuses?

    Why can't a device built from a schematic be highly effective and deadly? Why does it HAVE to be built by a Tinker for it to be effective?

    The person is question said that non Tinkers can pilot mechs. I would hardly consider the player character to be a good example of that argument. If we saw armies of regular alliance or horde soldiers flying around in mechs, I could understand the argument.
    Again, you're moving the goal posts. You just asked for someone who wasn't a Tinker that piloted mechs and tanks and used gadgets. Is the player character a Tinker, yes or no?

    That said. We've seen literal hordes of gnomish flying machines, goblin shredders, tanks, and gadgets like walking bombs throughout the life of this game. Are you trying to suggest that every single one we've seen was built AND piloted by a mechanical genius?

    Based on the profession, no. Which makes sense because the profession is designed to make toys, trinkets and items for sale.
    The engineering professions makes bombs that are effective at what they do. They also make guns, scopes, and gadgets that are effective at what they do.

    But most importantly, they literally make mechs that the player can use as a mount.

    So, what part of all that is "not effective."

    The difference in cooldown, the difference in power level, the difference in availability, etc. If the goal is to say that any class can be an engineer like Mekkatorque or Blackfuse, the weaponry wouldn't be so purposely weak.
    I never said every class can be an engineer LIKE Blackfuse and Mekkatorque I simply said they can build effective devices. You seem to be of this weird mind set that simply because a device is built from a schematic means that's it's ineffective. Which is laughable.

    Just because a mechanical genius can build things faster and can build effective things from scratch doesn't mean that someone else can't build something just as effective, if not MORE effective, from a schematic.

    Again, you're getting hung up on the lore versus gameplay. Gameplay being forced in a direction due to balancing doesn't alter the lore of the class. For example, Brewmasters have an unlimited source of bottles and kegs, yet our bags aren't full of bottles and kegs. Why? Because of gameplay. Simply because we say that a Tinker is an inventor doesn't mean that they have to constantly invent abilities.
    Are you somehow trying to argue that every Tinker goes into battle with nothing but tools and materials, and then proceeds to invent, build and deploy their creations in the heat of battle...all on the fly?

    What part of the idea that combatants actually prepare and train for battle is so difficult to grasp? Is it just because it's a Tinker doing it that it doesn't make sense?

    Except the profession doesn't have a tool kit. The profession just creates items, it has no rotational abilities. The actual class is based on the hero, not the profession.
    GAME. BALANCE. That's why professions don't have rotational abilities. That's why profession items are so castrated in terms of usability and power.

    Of course a professions doesn't have rotational abilities. I simply said a Tinker would use engineering technology in battle. That means engineering type devices and abilities would be used as part of the Tinker rotation. Those abilities would likely be themed after the Tinker heroes, but that doesn't mean the abilities are not based in engineering.

  19. #519
    Quote Originally Posted by ymirsson View Post
    Also, paladins are not warriors, warriors are not paladins, because those words have specific meanings in WoW. Unlike tinker.
    Wait what? You do realize tinker also has specific meaning right? In wow. Mekatorque is tinker. There are other tinkers in game too.

  20. #520
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And I'll repeat: Profession imbalance IS an issue. We know this because there was a profession imbalance favoring engineering in earlier iterations of WoW and Blizzard had to effectively nerf engineering's items to bring them in line with other professions
    That's completely offtopic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    BTW, they gave the professions unique abilities in MoP and they removed it immediately in WoD because again, it wasn't worth the balancing headache, and people didn't like it. Thus your argument that it would make the game better overall has been disproven by history.
    Just because they tried to do it once and failed - doesn't mean it cannot be done right. It's way easier than adding a new class. They seem to be doing it with covenants. They did it with Heart of Azeroth. And btw, adding an ability to a profession is no different than adding an ability to a class -like there's literally zero difference other than the source of the ability lore-wise.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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