Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[cocomen2]

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?

[Teriz]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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.

[Elim Garak]

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.

[Teriz]

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.

[ymirsson]

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.

[HateTrain]

The pedantry of it all.

[Teriz]

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.

[Afrospinach]

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.

[maxiixam]

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."

[Mirishka]

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.

[Triceron]

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.

[Teriz]

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.

[Katchii]

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.

[kaminaris]

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.

[Elim Garak]

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.

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.

[kaminaris]

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.

And yet not all engineers are tinkers. Tinkers in lore are battle class. Since WC3.

[Triceron]

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.

But we do. It's just abstracted into looser game mechanics.

Rockets and Bombs? Check.
Robot minions? Check.
Mech suits? Check.
Engineering Upgrade? Check.

Engineering does all of this stuff. It just doesn't do it in a specific way designed as a class, but if you're talking about a class then you're not talking lore you're talking about gameplay.

Lore-wise, the Tinker is already represented in WoW because all Tinkers are Engineers.

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.

That's not how lore works, my friend. If it isn't written, it's not lore. Lore is fictional history, and you can't bank on what ifs as 'potential history'. Lore is what is already known, and as far as technology goes in WoW we already know what it is and who can use it.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet not all engineers are tinkers. Tinkers in lore are battle class. Since WC3.

And we don't have specific classes for Beastmasters, Dark Rangers, Necromancers, Shadow Hunters either. Just because these concepts exist in lore does not mean Blizzard has to make them playable. These concepts are abstracted into gameplay by means of Hunters, DK's and Shamans. Or if you decide that those classes do not represent them, then simply the answer is that these classes are not playable and likely never will be as their own independent classes.

Lore does dictate WoW having a playable class for every WC3 hero title we come across. If we get a Tinker class, it's not because we need the Lore to fill in blanks. If we get a Necromancer class, it's not because we didn't have the Lore for them in WoW classes. Lore is simply fictional history, and you can't consider Necromancers and Tinkers potentially being new classes as a part of WoW's fictional history; history is what already happened not what could or is going to happen.

Whether Blizzard decides to make a fully fledged class out of it is a different question, but if we're strictly talking about lore then we already have those elements represented in the game. At the end of the day, nothing about this has anything to do with lore, because they all already exist within Warcraft whether gameplay decides they are playable or not.

If Blizzard does enact upon adding those types of identities as classes of their own, I'd suspect Class Skins would be the way they would do it. It's the best way to add all the B and C-tier class concepts all in one go. Wardens, Spellbreakers, Runemasters, Bards... all of them can be Class skins based on Paladins, Monks and Priests.

[Teriz]

So what? Are you suggesting that devices built from schematics are automatically ineffective? Because that's just ludicrous.

Uh no. I'm saying that some schmuck who can follow a schematic isn't as technically advanced as the person who designed the schematic in the first place.

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.

You misread what I'm saying. I'm saying that there aren't thousands of Death Knight Deathlords in Legion, there's only one.

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?

Designed by the Blackfuse company and built by Orcs. Probably from Helix Blackfuse's original designs like the Iron Reaver.

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?

The poster implied it was something that everyman can do. Using player characters as examples isn't a good example.

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?

Did you see any mechs in the BFA cinematic being piloted by anyone? Mekkatorque shows up later with a mech army, but they're all Gnomes. Kind of weird to be using trebuchets when you can just put someone in a mech and fly over the city and bombard it right?

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.

Then why is a Wildfire bomb supposedly constructed by a Hunter more powerful than bombs made by an Engineer?

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

From a schematic found in a journal.

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.

Shouldn't a mechanical genius be able to build more effective things than a warrior who crafts engineering trinkets every once in a while?

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?

Obviously a Tinker would build their mech suit and other devices in advance and use those devices in combat. However, a Tinker should be able to make modifications and improvements to their devices while fighting. That can be shown through cool downs or passive talents.

What part of the idea that combatants actually prepare and train for battle is so difficult to grasp?

I'm not aware of any point where I made that argument.

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.

Again, what "engineering" are you talking about? If you're saying that the abilities would be based on what we see in the engineering profession, that isn't true. What we see out of WC3 and HotS (and consequently what we see in related WoW NPCs) backs that up.

- - - Updated - - -

That's completely offtopic.

You brought it into topic by saying that profession balance ISN'T an issue. Again, it definitely is.

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.

This is entirely your opinion.

[Elim Garak]

You brought it into topic by saying that profession balance ISN'T an issue. Again, it definitely is.

Nope. I said that the imbalance you were talking about (adding abilities to engineering) - was not the issue.
Context. It matters

The general imbalance here and there - is as irrelevant as it is inevitable.

[Afrospinach]

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.

This is a very incoherent response.