Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Usernameforforums]

You are being ridiculous. It's a trolling thread to begin with. Most people are sick of these petty forum wars you guys insist on engaging in and don't want any part of it.
Also, your point holds no water. It seems difficult to grasp but a new class doesn't need to appeal to all. Can we agree on that and stop the stubburness and spite wars? It's ok to like different things.

Ive only had what, 5-6 post on this thread? How many does the other guy have?

[ymirsson]

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

You mean every mech jockey in the world of warcraft invents all of the stuffs he's using? You really think so? And i wonder, how many possible energy sources are there to be invented? Can we only have 127 tinkers in existence, because anyone after that can't invent his own gear? Do every one of them invents "new" things that go boom?

Ah, i know, they give it a new, memeworthy name which doubles either as a slippery joke or a pun so low it creates headaches and voila, "new" gadget.

[Vargrik]

I don't like the tech/steampunkish side of WoW and I wouldn't like an excuse to see even more of it, to be honest.

[Alcsaar]

A vast majority no doubt loathe the idea, but not everyone. I'm in the latter. Tinkerer, Machinist, Engineer - call it what you will. It could be a fantastic addition to WoW.

That being said, it would have to be done right. One slip up and the fickle mob, aka the community, would have a fit. Monks fitted MoP because of the Pandaren culture, and Demon Hunters fitted Legion because it came time to fight fire with fire. Depending on what happens after Shadowlands, that could be the time to introduce a new class.

But only time will tell. And HE is watching from beyond the veil. Damaged, but rebuilding.

This was the expansion that a new class was due in, and it would have been perfect for a necromancer, yet we get nothing but some old niche abilities back that still no one will use bloating our bars.

[Ielenia]

Do you have any lore from Blizzard that states that professions and classes are the same?

Teriz, for the love of whatever you hold holy: it's basic logic! "Class" and "profession" are just gameplay terms. At no point in the lore has any distinction between "class" and "profession" been shown. In lore, no one has ever been praised for their "tinkering skills", always their engineering skills.

And as for you? The only piece of evidence you have that the two aren't the same? It's a game mechanic. Which makes that evidence null and void when we're discussing lore.

You mean they're several levels weaker than the player character. The player character Mage and/or Paladin is supposedly quite a bit more powerful than a standard mage or Paladin. Remember, in Legion they were made the leaders of their classes.

It doesn't make them any less of a paladin/mage/shaman/whatever. And if they are really several levels weaker than the player character, why don't you go into the Battle of Dazar'alor instance and try to solo the paladins, mages, shamans, etc, that exist within that instance. I bet you won't be able to get past the paladin guarding the entrance to the docks... much less the mage and monk that guard the stairs up to the troll city proper...

Except there are no known Necromancer or Bard heroes. There were some reputable Necromancers, but they're dead.

There were no known monk heroes, either. Also: Illidan was dead. But we still got monks and demon hunters.

And the concept around those abilities

Teriz. Concepts don't come from abilities. It's the other way around: abilities come from concepts.

During the Legion invasion when he defended Durator piloting a mech, and during the Island Expedition.

"Piloting a mech" is small potatoes. Anyone can do that.

That's exactly what it is, and the fact that you can't answer the question I asked speaks volumes.

If you think that's semantics, then you don't know what "semantics" are, Teriz. And as for your question, I don't have to answer it because, again, it's wholly inconsequential and meaningless. We have two classes that deal heavily with Light, one of them completely about the Light. We have two classes that deal heavily with demons, both of them completely about demons.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean every mech jockey in the world of warcraft invents all of the stuffs he's using? You really think so? And i wonder, how many possible energy sources are there to be invented? Can we only have 127 tinkers in existence, because anyone after that can't invent his own gear? Do every one of them invents "new" things that go boom?

Ah, i know, they give it a new, memeworthy name which doubles either as a slippery joke or a pun so low it creates headaches and voila, "new" gadget.

He's also forgetting how engineers literally invent since a good number (if not most) of the entries in the 'Tinkering' section of engineering are learned through invention. Likewise, when we craft a "rank 1" of the engineering helms here in BfA, you "invent" the rank 2 of that piece of gear... and then again, you 'invent' the rank 3 when you craft the upgraded version.

[ymirsson]

There were some reputable Necromancers, but they're dead.

Ah yes, they got a prestige class upgrade.

[Teriz]

You mean every mech jockey in the world of warcraft invents all of the stuffs he's using? You really think so? And i wonder, how many possible energy sources are there to be invented? Can we only have 127 tinkers in existence, because anyone after that can't invent his own gear? Do every one of them invents "new" things that go boom?

Mekkatorque is an inventor, Blackfuse was an inventor, and Gazlowe is theorized to be an inventor. Further, the Tinker hero from WC3 is mentioned to be an inventor as well. "Tinker" in Gnome appears to mean inventor as well, since Mekkatorque became "High Tinker" due to his inventive skills.

Obviously gameplay wise there can be multiple playable Tinkers, and they will have the same abilities, despite the lore saying that those devices are the Tinker's inventions.

- - - Updated - - -

Teriz, for the love of whatever you hold holy: it's basic logic! "Class" and "profession" are just gameplay terms. At no point in the lore has any distinction between "class" and "profession" been shown. In lore, no one has ever been praised for their "tinkering skills", always their engineering skills.

And as for you? The only piece of evidence you have that the two aren't the same? It's a game mechanic. Which makes that evidence null and void when we're discussing lore.

Here's what Blizzard says about Professions;

Professions
Your character can learn a profession like blacksmithing, tailoring, engineering, and many more. Professions let you collect resources on your travels and use them to craft items. Blacksmiths, for example, can craft weapons and armor; alchemists brew potions and tinctures; engineers build amazing gadgets and devices and so on. Professions are also an excellent way to make gold by selling items you craft to other players.

Here's what Blizzard says about Classes;

Creating a Hero
When you enter the game for the first time, you will need to create a character for yourself. This will be your avatar in World of Warcraft. First, you must choose a race (which determines what your character looks like) and then a class (which determines what your character can do). You can pick whatever looks and feels best to you.

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...-players-guide


And here's another one (From Wowpedia)

Class:
A class is the primary adventuring style of a player character. A character's class determines the abilities, powers, skills, and spells they will gain throughout their adventures, and consequently the styles of play available to the character. It determines the types of weapons and armor they can use, which attributes they will value (and how those attributes function), as well as what combat roles the character is suitable for. Class also reflects a significant choice of path for a character: whether they have chosen to pursue the dark arts of the warlock or the Holy Light of the paladin; the bloody honor of the warrior or the arcane knowledge of the mage.

And

Profession:
A profession is a trade-oriented set of skills that player characters may learn and incrementally advance in order to gather, make, or enhance items that can be used in World of Warcraft gameplay. In essence, professions are 'jobs' characters may have. Professions are learned and improved via a trainer for a nominal fee, or sometimes advanced with special recipes. Any profession can be learned regardless of a character's faction, race, or class, although some racial traits provide bonuses to a particular profession. For example, gnomes have [Engineering Specialization] which may aid them if taking up the Engineering profession.

In short, your class is what your character can do. Professions are just an optional thing you can do to make gold.

If you have lore that contradicts this, please produce it. If you don't (and we both know that you don't), then your view here is nothing but head canon, because the gameplay supports these quotes.

It doesn't make them any less of a paladin/mage/shaman/whatever. And if they are really several levels weaker than the player character, why don't you go into the Battle of Dazar'alor instance and try to solo the paladins, mages, shamans, etc, that exist within that instance. I bet you won't be able to get past the paladin guarding the entrance to the docks... much less the mage and monk that guard the stairs up to the troll city proper...

Which is simply a gameplay convention to give the player a challenge. In lore it is doubtful that the former Highlord of the Paladin class, the former welder of Ashbringer, and the Champion of the Alliance/Horde would get beaten by a generic Paladin.

There were no known monk heroes, either. Also: Illidan was dead. But we still got monks and demon hunters.

Chen Stormstout.

Teriz. Concepts don't come from abilities. It's the other way around: abilities come from concepts.

More semantic nonsense. The point is that the abilities used by the Tinker are obviously not for selling items to other players.

"Piloting a mech" is small potatoes. Anyone can do that.

Designing, building, and piloting your own mech isn't small potatoes though.

If you think that's semantics, then you don't know what "semantics" are, Teriz

Saying that an engineer and a tinker are the same thing and purposely ignoring their differences because they are synonyms in the English language is semantics. And of course I'm not surprise that you choose to avoid my question.

[Ielenia]

Here's what Blizzard says about Professions;

Here's what Blizzard says about Classes;

https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ga...-players-guide

And here's another one (From Wowpedia)

And

In short, your class is what your character can do. Professions are just an optional thing you can do to make gold.

In short, you have a whole lot of meaningless bullshit there, because, again, it's a player's guide, meaning it talks about game mechanics and game features, and NOT the lore of the game. For fuck's sake, look at the wording:

"Your character can learn a profession like blacksmithing, tailoring, engineering, and many more. Professions let you collect resources on your travels and use them to craft items. Blacksmiths, for example, can craft weapons and armor; alchemists brew potions and tinctures; engineers build amazing gadgets and devices and so on. Professions are also an excellent way to make gold by selling items you craft to other players."

"Creating a Hero
When you enter the game for the first time, you will need to create a character for yourself. This will be your avatar in World of Warcraft. First, you must choose a race (which determines what your character looks like) and then a class (which determines what your character can do). You can pick whatever looks and feels best to you."

"Class:
A class is the primary adventuring style of a player character. A character's class determines the abilities, powers, skills, and spells they will gain throughout their adventures, and consequently the styles of play available to the character. It determines the types of weapons and armor they can use, which attributes they will value (and how those attributes function), as well as what combat roles the character is suitable for. Class also reflects a significant choice of path for a character: whether they have chosen to pursue the dark arts of the warlock or the Holy Light of the paladin; the bloody honor of the warrior or the arcane knowledge of the mage."

"Profession:
A profession is a trade-oriented set of skills that player characters may learn and incrementally advance in order to gather, make, or enhance items that can be used in World of Warcraft gameplay. In essence, professions are 'jobs' characters may have. Professions are learned and improved via a trainer for a nominal fee, or sometimes advanced with special recipes. Any profession can be learned regardless of a character's faction, race, or class, although some racial traits provide bonuses to a particular profession. For example, gnomes have [Engineering Specialization] which may aid them if taking up the Engineering profession."

All your examples? They're talking about gameplay and NOT lore.

Which is simply a gameplay convention to give the player a challenge.

Ah, so that is a "gameplay convention"? Funny how all the gameplay and game features that go against your narrative are just "gameplay conventions", but when they benefit your narrative, then it's "gameplay=lore".

"Rules for thee but not for me", eh? Such dishonesty...

Chen Stormstout.

Chen Stormstout was never a monk in the lore until the Mists of Pandaria expansion was created. He was made into a monk when the expansion was developed.

More semantic nonsense.

That is not what semantics mean, Teriz. You are making a claim that goes backwards in terms of design. Abilities come from concepts, not the other way around.

The point is that the abilities used by the Tinker are obviously not for selling items to other players.

And your point is meaningless because you're once again taking gameplay and treating it as lore, and also because this NPC, this NPC, this NPC and this NPC prove you're wrong: they're tinkers... who sell items.

Designing, building, and piloting your own mech isn't small potatoes though.

Can you prove Gazlowe built his mech, and didn't just commission it, like Gallywix?

Saying that an engineer and a tinker are the same thing and purposely ignoring their differences because they are synonyms in the English language is semantics.

Except I haven't claimed that, now have I? I said that the two are the same because the lore shows them to be the same. Nothing in the lore says that an engineer can't do the stuff tinkers do, and nothing in the lore says that tinkers can't do what the engineers do. And on top of that, tinkers are praised for their engineering skill, and there isn't a single event in the lore (to my knowledge, feel free to prove me wrong) of a tinker being praised for their tinkering skills.

And of course I'm not surprise that you choose to avoid my question.

As for your meaningless question, I've already explained why your question is not relevant.

[Sharby]

Tech based classes are cool, which means I would like Tinker.


However people want the class to get the DH treatment except with the two most unappealing races in the game (Gnome/Goblin.)



As a result I'd rather them not waste a class slot on that.

[Triceron]

Yeah, wrong. Tony Stark initially built weapons for the military, then he built the Iron Man suit which was for all intents and purposes, the ultimate weapon. Later he worked towards using the Iron Man tech to protect the planet and from that view he began to build utility and other stuff.

However, that all grew from inventing weapons.

Yes, and gnomes and goblins started their tech through weapons manufacturing during Warcraft 2.

Now they have branched it out to many non-lethal and utility based inventions like Deeprun Tram, Mechanostriders, non-combat mech suits and fancy stat boost goggles.

Tinkers on the other hand solely weaponize all their inventions.

[Teriz]

In short, you have a whole lot of meaningless bullshit there, because, again, it's a player's guide, meaning it talks about game mechanics and game features, and NOT the lore of the game. For fuck's sake, look at the wording:


All your examples? They're talking about gameplay and NOT lore.

And unless otherwise stated, gameplay is lore. So yes, lorewise classes and professions aren't the same thing. Gameplay bears out that difference perfectly.

Again, I'm waiting for you to provide some lore to counter what we see in gameplay.

Ah, so that is a "gameplay convention"? Funny how all the gameplay and game features that go against your narrative are just "gameplay conventions", but when they benefit your narrative, then it's "gameplay=lore".

Yes, because we have LORE to counter the gameplay convention.

Chen Stormstout was never a monk in the lore until the Mists of Pandaria expansion was created. He was made into a monk when the expansion was developed.

Which means that he was retroactively made into a Monk hero.

That is not what semantics mean, Teriz. You are making a claim that goes backwards in terms of design. Abilities come from concepts, not the other way around.

You're picking apart the meaning of words when we're reaching the same conclusion. That's semantics.

And your point is meaningless because you're once again taking gameplay and treating it as lore, and also because this NPC, this NPC, this NPC and this NPC prove you're wrong: they're tinkers... who sell items.

And we have Paladins, Mages, Warriors, Shaman, etc. that sell items too. What's your point?

Can you prove Gazlowe built his mech, and didn't just commission it, like Gallywix?

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.

Except I haven't claimed that, now have I? I said that the two are the same because the lore shows them to be the same. Nothing in the lore says that an engineer can't do the stuff tinkers do, and nothing in the lore says that tinkers can't do what the engineers do. And on top of that, tinkers are praised for their engineering skill, and there isn't a single event in the lore (to my knowledge, feel free to prove me wrong) of a tinker being praised for their tinkering skills.

The lore is the gameplay. The game itself shows a dramatic difference between Classes and Professions. Also the profession possesses none of the Tinker's abilities from WC3 or HotS. Again, until you can provide lore that contradicts the gameplay, you believing they are the same is nothing more than your head canon.

Also Mekkatorque is praised for his Tinkering skills, which is why he's promoted to High Tinker. The Gnome capital is called Tinker town and New Tinker Town. The throne room of Gnomeregan is called "The Tinker's Court". The inner sanctum of Mechagon is called The Tinkertory. There's also the Tinker's Union in Undermine. There's also the Tinker hero from WC3 which is considered canon.

As for your meaningless question, I've already explained why your question is not relevant.

Sure you did.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and gnomes and goblins started their tech through weapons manufacturing during Warcraft 2.

Now they have branched it out to many non-lethal and utility based inventions like Deeprun Tram, Mechanostriders, non-combat mech suits and fancy stat boost goggles.

Tinkers on the other hand solely weaponize all their inventions.

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.

[Elestia]

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.

[LemonDemonGirl]

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.

True. This game could use another ranged dps caster

[Teriz]

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.

Oh brother....

1. A profession isn't a class.
2. http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml
3. In your opinion
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.
5. And that wouldn't be the first time a class is lopsided towards a faction. However, you could always just make Vulpera Tinkers, and you have equal faction parity.

[Project 501D13R]

The hate for Tinkerer mostly stems from how there's another thread talking about it pretty much every single week, at this point to many people it just looks like beating a dead horse topic.

[Triceron]

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.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

I've never felt hate only apathy. Sorry, it's just not something that appeals to me.

[arkanon]

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?

[Ielenia]

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:

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):

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.

[Teriz]

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 - - -

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.