Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Srg56]

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.

You have a PR problem. Tinkerer is a goofy sounding name. I don't have a replacement suggestion. That's part one.

Part two is that this class has no identity. Everyone can remember the mortar team from warcraft 3 or the dwarf gunmen, even the goblin sappers. Try to leverage that into your suggestions and ideas when presenting the class.

Part three: There is no lore to draw from in the world except for gnomes and goblins, very little from dwarfs. Gnomes and goblins aren't exactly the face of warcraft, they're sidekicks at best and realistically a pair of joke races, full of nerdy stereotypes, historically relegated to comical side quests. Neither races have ever been featured in a trailer. When people who otherwise would be receptive to your ideas hear "tinkerer", they see a goofy gnome or goblin who blows themselves up, because that's what they've been exposed to the whole game. Engineering sometimes works, sometimes you kill yourself because the parachute didn't open. *oops* hehe, funny! right?

[Teriz]

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.

Well that didn't take long.

Right off the bat, that's entirely false. A mount for example isn't a mech suit akin to Robo Goblin. Further, if that was Blizzard's goal, they would at least give those items the NAME of the WC3 Tinker ability. That's exactly what they did with other mechanics like Drunken Haze or Incinerate.

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.

Uh the Tinker hero in WC3 is lore. Gazlowe and Mekkatorque are lore. Those are examples of technology different from the engineering profession. Blizzard added those different types of tech interactions themselves, thus it's silly to believe that their goal is have us ONLY have engineering as a way for us to interact with tech.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Adding class-like abilities to engineering would cause a profession imbalance. Profession balance is an issue.

I'm not seeing why you're having difficulty with this.

[Snowfunk]

The entire class concept is just horrifyingly silly.

[Teriz]

You have a PR problem. Tinkerer is a goofy sounding name. I don't have a replacement suggestion. That's part one.

Mechanic, Machinist, Technician, Siegecrafter, Mekgineer, etc.

Part two is that this class has no identity. Everyone can remember the mortar team from warcraft 3 or the dwarf gunmen, even the goblin sappers. Try to leverage that into your suggestions and ideas when presenting the class.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/neutr...intinker.shtml
https://heroesofthestorm.gamepedia.com/Gazlowe

[Elim Garak]

Adding class-like abilities to engineering would cause a profession imbalance. Profession balance is an issue.

I'm not seeing why you're having difficulty with this.

Hence to offset it they will add abilities to all professions and it won't be an issue
And I begin to see why you are having difficulty with this.

[Teriz]

Hence to offset it they will add abilities to all professions and it won't be an issue
And I begin to see why you are having difficulty with this.

Yes, because we need to do this because you believe that we don't need anymore classes, so instead we stuff the engineering profession with Tinker abilities. Which in turn forces Blizzard to come up with multiple abilities for other professions.

In the end, Blizzard would never do it, so this argument is pointless.

[kaminaris]

And we don't have specific classes for Beastmasters, Dark Rangers, Necromancers, Shadow Hunters either.

Of course we do, it's just that they are not playable except for beastmaster which is just hunter BM.

[Katchii]

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.

And that means that anything that person builds from a schematic is somehow ineffective?

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

OK? I don't really understand what this has to do with the points I'm trying to make.

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

Which means any random person can take a schematic, that's not their own, and create a HIGHLY effective device. Thanks for proving my point.

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

Again, you asked for someone who isn't a Tinker that pilots and/or used technology. The player character fits that bill perfectly.

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?

If you're a moron when it comes to strategy, yes. There's a reason they didn't do that, because as we've seen at least once on both sides, the Alliance and Horde both have enough air support to bombard cities and towns. Simply flying up to a city that's ready for you to come, when they also have air support and surface to air destructive capability, is just asking to get your ass handed to you.

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

Game play balancing?

See YOUR OWN previous post on profession balancing.

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.

From a schematic found in a journal.

So what? Literally every class can make it. And it's effective. This just proves that literally every class is capable of making highly complex, highly effective pieces of engineering technology.

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

No where did I argue otherwise. I just said that a warrior engineer is quite capable of building and using effective pieces of engineering technology.

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.

Or, those passive talents modify the base technology (meaning they modified their base tools in their "shop") and then used it in battle and those cool downs were built in functions of their pre-built technology that can only be used every once and a while.

The idea that any person will have the ability to stop fighting and make modifications to their gadgets in the heat of battle in the middle of a battlefieldis a little crazy. There is no "pause" button on a battle field, and no enemy is going to give you the time needed to literally pause, take out your tools, take out the gadget, take it apart, modify it, put it back together and THEN finally use it.

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

My point was that Tinkers, even as amazing technological geniuses as they, wouldn't bring technology to a battlefield that they hadn't already tested out and made sure it worked. They would "train" just like everyone else.

You were implying that a core part of the Tinker lore is that they DO invent and use stuff on the fly. I'm saying that's not how it would actually play out in practice. Just look at the Mekkatorque and Blackfuse fights. They used pieces of technology they had already created and was available to them during the fight. They didn't create new stuff and throw it at you on the fly, they took stuff they had planned and already built and used it.

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.

Engineer as a theme, an idea, an action...not the literal in-game profession. As in, someone had to think about it, plan it, build it, etc... (engineer it).

Are the abilities used by Tinkers in WC3 and HotS based on that concept? That they had to "engineer" it?

That's what I'm saying.

[Elim Garak]

Yes, because we need to do this because you believe that we don't need anymore classes, so instead we stuff the engineering profession with Tinker abilities. Which in turn forces Blizzard to come up with multiple abilities for other professions.

In the end, Blizzard would never do it, so this argument is pointless.

What do you mean "forces"? Lol. If they are adding abilities to professions they don't do it because they are forced - they do it because they want to! They don't go "hey let's add abilities to engineering! Oh noes now we have to add abilities to all professions".

Never say never. Blizzard is all about adding abilities to places they've never added abilities before. Since Vanilla. On-use trinkets anyone?

[Triceron]

Well that didn't take long.

Right off the bat, that's entirely false. A mount for example isn't a mech suit akin to Robo Goblin. Further, if that was Blizzard's goal, they would at least give those items the NAME of the WC3 Tinker ability. That's exactly what they did with other mechanics like Drunken Haze or Incinerate.

Lorewise there is no difference. The difference you're talking about isn't lore, it's gameplay mechanics.

Engineering covers the creation of mech suits. Mekkatorque and Blackfuse have weaponized mechs because they are master Engineers, and the case for them weaponizing them is that they're major NPCs that use technology in a way that our classes haven't adapted to. Yet any class is capable of using weaponized mech suits - we can pilot Lightforged Warframes.

Furthermore, gameplay abilities aren't lore. I have been talking about how you mentioned lore as a reason, so bringing up names of abilities is a separate matter completely. We're talking about how the Tinker is represented in the lore, and specifics like Pocket Factories or the name of Robo Goblin aren't even canonized. They're only featured in the non-canon Multiplayer of Warcraft 3, where the Night Elves can hire Pit Lords.

Uh the Tinker hero in WC3 is lore. Gazlowe and Mekkatorque are lore. Those are examples of technology different from the engineering profession. Blizzard added those different types of tech int

Yes, and both are Engineers in the current WoW lore. The Tinker title is a subset of Engineer. All Tinkers are Engineers. There's no lore saying we need Tinkers as something completely separate from an Engineer for it to be a class.

[Kithelle]

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

I don't see Goblins and Gnomes as pure comedy, do you laugh at short people on the street? Besides WoW has never been something to take itself too seriously

Warcraft has had technology in the game since the RTS...if people had a problem with technology then the writing was on the wall from the start that this wasn't the game for them. Besides another thing that has been here since the beginning...you really seem to hate things that have been in the game since the start...

Mech suits have also been around since the beginning

I'm starting to see a trend here, you hate stuff that has been in the game from the beginning and love to complain about it rather than move on to something else that would cause you less anguish.

[qwerty123456]

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. 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.



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.

Are you insane? You just contradicted your entire argument about professions being different than abilites by stating lorewise they would be building everything but in game they would just be abilities and to further prove my point that item abilites are no different from "abilites" lorewise do you think a hunter is magically pulling a trap from his ass? Lorewise he is using an item. Lorewise they use bullets/arrows which surprise surprise is an item. How on earth do you not understand that lorewise a rogue pulling a pistol out and shooting someone is the exact same as if it was an engineering item? He's not just manifesting a pistol from his mind.

3. Gallywix isn't a tinker and still uses a mech. That proves you don't have to magically create your own idea from scratch to be a mech user or by your concept a tinker.

4. Like the thousands of pilots and other named npcs that pilot mechs without showing any inventiveness? Like the Goblin pilots in the goblin scenario etc.... Do you think all those goblin shredders were each individually invented by the goblin that pilots them? Or did you know the actual creators hang back and build them and have scrubs/disposable people use them? I forget who ended up creating Gallywix's mech and who piloted it??? Hmmm........


Yes Gazlowe has a single ability from Hots called Xplodium Charge. And I forget what was Gazlowe's Warcraft 3 base unit?? Oh yeah a sapper. And what was he called? An engineer. And what's his official class in WoW? Engineer. And what were sappers and engineers known for? Bombs. What did tinkers use? Rockets which are a thousand times more complex. And what is Xplodium charge? A Bomb. So could it be that the Hots team gave him an ability related to his real profession so people wouldn't bitch as much when they took him and turned him into a tinker since there aren't really any known goblin tinkers? Or could it be that the Hots team doesn't give a shit about actual lore and just designs characters around what are good kits and "cool" concepts and used Gazlowe as a tinker because they needed a known goblin and wanted a tinker?

[Teriz]

And that means that anything that person builds from a schematic is somehow ineffective?

In some cases yes. Hence why there's a chance of backfire with engineering profession items, and why some items become ineffective at higher levels.

OK? I don't really understand what this has to do with the points I'm trying to make.

You were arguing that an inventor inventing abilities wouldn't work with WoW gameplay. I was pointing out that Blizzard has made individual aspects in WoW before, like the class leaders in legion.

Which means any random person can take a schematic, that's not their own, and create a HIGHLY effective device. Thanks for proving my point.

Not really, since the Blackrock Orcs were the builders of those devices, and they were highly skilled blacksmiths and artisans.

Again, you asked for someone who isn't a Tinker that pilots and/or used technology. The player character fits that bill perfectly.

Which is like saying anyone can pilot a helicopter because Captain America did it.

If you're a moron when it comes to strategy, yes. There's a reason they didn't do that, because as we've seen at least once on both sides, the Alliance and Horde both have enough air support to bombard cities and towns. Simply flying up to a city that's ready for you to come, when they also have air support and surface to air destructive capability, is just asking to get your ass handed to you.

Again you miss the point. If mechs are so common, why weren't the present at the battle of Lordaeran? Why was Mekkatorque the only one with a mech on broken shore?

Game play balancing?

See YOUR OWN previous post on profession balancing.

But if engineers are supposedly on par with Tinkers, or any class that has a bomb as their class ability why would need to balance engineering?

So what? Literally every class can make it. And it's effective. This just proves that literally every class is capable of making highly complex, highly effective pieces of engineering technology.

I would hesitate to call them effective. Most engineering weapons are mere toys. And the only way they build these toys is through instructions from highly skilled engineers. It should also be noted that the Sky Golem is noticeably weaker than Blackfuse, Gazlowe's, or Marin's Shredders.

No where did I argue otherwise. I just said that a warrior engineer is quite capable of building and using effective pieces of engineering technology.

I disagree.

Or, those passive talents modify the base technology (meaning they modified their base tools in their "shop") and then used it in battle and those cool downs were built in functions of their pre-built technology that can only be used every once and a while.

The idea that any person will have the ability to stop fighting and make modifications to their gadgets in the heat of battle in the middle of a battlefieldis a little crazy. There is no "pause" button on a battle field, and no enemy is going to give you the time needed to literally pause, take out your tools, take out the gadget, take it apart, modify it, put it back together and THEN finally use it.[/quote]

You mean the way the battle pauses for a spell caster to chant magic words to cast a spell? Why can't a Tinker simply press a button and make his Turrets upgrade, or have his pocket factory churn out robots more quickly?

My point was that Tinkers, even as amazing technological geniuses as they, wouldn't bring technology to a battlefield that they hadn't already tested out and made sure it worked. They would "train" just like everyone else.

You were implying that a core part of the Tinker lore is that they DO invent and use stuff on the fly. I'm saying that's not how it would actually play out in practice. Just look at the Mekkatorque and Blackfuse fights. They used pieces of technology they had already created and was available to them during the fight. They didn't create new stuff and throw it at you on the fly, they took stuff they had planned and already built and used it.

I'm not implying it, that's the lore of the RPG class and seemingly the WC3 hero. That said, it's a rather meaningless argument because the only thing that matters is the class mechanics. If a Tinker drops a Pocket factory in the game, and activates a cooldown to make it pump out robots more quickly, it really doesn't matter if he had it planned that way, or is upgrading it on the spot.

Engineer as a theme, an idea, an action...not the literal in-game profession. As in, someone had to think about it, plan it, build it, etc... (engineer it).

Are the abilities used by Tinkers in WC3 and HotS based on that concept? That they had to "engineer" it?

That's what I'm saying.

Again, I think we're getting into the weeds with semantics and psuedo-lore. The abilities used by Tinkers in WC3 and HotS are based on the concept of using technology to destroy a target and increase the Tinkers abilities to destroy that target. Translated into WoW, it's the same concept, just used to perform class roles. That's it and that's all.

And it's a marked difference from the concept of the profession which is to build items to sell to other players.

[Ielenia]

Again, until you provide stated lore that says that professions and classes are the same, you stating so is nothing more than head canon.

I have basic logic, narrative logic, and in-game evidence showing many similarities between the two, and none showing any real difference between the two.

I've already explained this.

All you did was display blatant double-standard and dishonest hypocrisy. You cannot pick-and-choose when gameplay is lore and when it isn't. That's like saying midi-chlorians aren't canon to the Star Wars story because you don't like how it "devalues the Force."

None are prominent.

Neither was Chen Stormstrout. Before MoP, he was only ever mentioned once, and even then, just in passing, for teaching an orc how to brew booze.

That is from a quest in the Barrens.

That you acquire by finding a random, indistinct barrel on the ground.

A barrel that didn't have a golden "!" above it. Nor did it glow. Because that's how it used to be back in the day.

A barrel that spawned randomly through The Barrens.

Again, the game and the lore characters don't back up that assessment.

Really? Because Gazlowe is never called a tinker. And neither was Blackfuse.

Semantics.

You're trolling, aren't you? That is not semantics. Evidence that disproves your claim is not semantics.

- - - Updated - - -

With that said, why would it be a complete deal breaker for a Tinker class to have a mixed bag of some stuff they made and created themselves, mixed with stuff they learned and memorized from someone else?

Because he can't understand concepts. The WC3 unit was called an "inventor" and so that somehow means the Goblin Tinker invents EVERYTHING they use, and nothing they know came from a mentor or trainer, they did so all by themselves, no help whatsoever. He actually believes people "learn things spontaneously by themselves" in Warcraft. He really does.

Why wouldn't a warrior be able to do this? Warriors can be Engineers right? The Engineering profession can build effective bombs and devices right?

Again, if you're trying to argue that the difference is in the cooldown and that somehow reflects on the effectiveness of the actual device, and that it's not simply balancing game mechanics, you're delusional.

Well, Teriz believes that it's canon to the lore of Warcraft that the people in that world can run from Silvermoon to Booty Bay while carrying over thirty tons of weight on their shoulders, without stopping even once, and arriving to Booty Bay without being slightly winded. He also believes that a set of full plate armor still allows you to float and swim unimpeded in the water. And I have him on record saying such.

[Villager720]

Personally, as someone who primarily plays Horde, I'm very "over" goblins at this point.
Every expansion, they always have a few gobbo questing hubs and they're the pits. Same humor, same nonsense, same urge to avoid those chains at all costs when leveling alts. (Special shout out to their bullshit hub in the Spires of Arak of all places. Why are they there? Why?)
And I've got to say, I just don't want those questing hubs or their denizens to be responsible for tanking my dungeons/raids with their boring joke lasers.

And gnomes essentially have all the same problems, but manage to be even more boring. They bring the exact same vibe/humor/tech as gobbos, sans sketchiness.

[Ielenia]

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

Then why do we have "battle engineers"?

[Teriz]

Lorewise there is no difference. The difference you're talking about isn't lore, it's gameplay mechanics.

Mekkatorque and Blackfuse didn't wander the world looking for a journal to build a mech. They built it on their own.

That is a lore difference.

Engineering covers the creation of mech suits. Mekkatorque and Blackfuse have weaponized mechs because they are master Engineers, and the case for them weaponizing them is that they're major NPCs that use technology in a way that our classes haven't adapted to. Yet any class is capable of using weaponized mech suits - we can pilot Lightforged Warframes.

Engineering allows you to build a mount from a schematic. I would hardly consider that "covering the creation of mech suits" given that there's way more mech mounts available from drops than from the profession.

Furthermore, gameplay abilities aren't lore. I have been talking about how you mentioned lore as a reason, so bringing up names of abilities is a separate matter completely. We're talking about how the Tinker is represented in the lore, and specifics like Pocket Factories or the name of Robo Goblin aren't even canonized. They're only featured in the non-canon Multiplayer of Warcraft 3, where the Night Elves can hire Pit Lords.

Yet abilities like Xplodium Charge, Deth Lazor, Rock-it-Turret, and Grav-O-Bomb 3000, and Cluster Rockets are featured in WoW. Thus it stands to reason that the other Tinker abilities are canon as well.

Yes, and both are Engineers in the current WoW lore. The Tinker title is a subset of Engineer. All Tinkers are Engineers. There's no lore saying we need Tinkers as something completely separate from an Engineer for it to be a class.

Again, the lack of Tinker abilities in engineering shows that they are two completely separate disciplines.

- - - Updated - - -

I have basic logic, narrative logic, and in-game evidence showing many similarities between the two, and none showing any real difference between the two.

Head canon versus Gameplay.

Gameplay wins.

[Ielenia]

Lorewise there is no difference. The difference you're talking about isn't lore, it's gameplay mechanics.

Remember: Teriz makes no distinction whatsoever between "gameplay mechanics" and "lore".

Except when it suits him, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Head canon versus Gameplay.

Gameplay wins.

Wrong. Gameplay is not lore. When we're talking lore, gameplay always loses.

And again you're ignoring everything else I wrote.

[Triceron]

Mekkatorque and Blackfuse didn't wander the world looking for a journal to build a mech. They built it on their own.

That is a lore difference.

No, the lore for Engineers is that they build and utilize technology. There is no distinction between wandering the world or building it on your own. Lore says you use tech, you're an Engineer.

What you're describing is a literal game mechanics difference.

Engineering allows you to build a mount from a schematic. I would hardly consider that "covering the creation of mech suits" given that there's way more mech mounts available from drops than from the profession.

And that's still gameplay. It's not a lore issue, you have a gameplay issue.

Yet abilities like Xplodium Charge, Deth Lazor, Rock-it-Turret, and Grav-O-Bomb 3000, and Cluster Rockets are featured in WoW. Thus it stands to reason that the other Tinker abilities are canon as well.

No, it doesn't reason to be made accessible to players.

Sylvanas has Banshee powers, and those are unique to her and her alone. There's no necessity for Hunters to gain Banshee powers by association. Lore doesn't necessitate it.

Again, the lack of Tinker abilities in engineering shows that they are two completely separate disciplines.

Except they aren't, considering there is little-to-no Tinker lore that describes how they are actually different to Engineers.

All we know is that they're a subset of Engineer by association. What distinctions we observe are literally based on game mechanics, but it's not to say they are two separate disciplines. That's like inferring Tauren Sunwalkers are a separate discipline from Paladins because they derive their faith from a Druidic source; yet that's not how the lore works. They're one and the same.

If you use technology to create something, you are an Engineer.

The lore doesn't make any difference between Profession and Class or Titles. They are all regarded equally.

[Teriz]

Wrong. Gameplay is not lore. When we're talking lore, gameplay always loses.

Then provide the lore that says that Professions and classes are the same.

Your "logic" isn't lore.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the lore for Engineers is that they build and utilize technology. There is no distinction between wandering the world or building it on your own. Lore says you use tech, you're an Engineer.

Uh if you can build it on your own without having the wander the world to find instructions, that is a difference. Further, if you're doing more effort to come up with a worse result, then that shows that one group is profoundly weaker than the other.

What you're describing is a literal game mechanics difference.

Not really, since nowhere in the game do we see huge groups of Paladins, Warriors, or Rogues piloting mechs. The only people we see doing this are Goblins, Gnomes, and the occasional LF Draenei.

And that's still gameplay. It's not a lore issue, you have a gameplay issue.

Gameplay reflects lore. Again, if I'm playing a Goblin and I want to be like Gazlowe fighting inside a mech engineering doesn't provide that.

No, it doesn't reason to be made accessible to players.

Sylvanas has Banshee powers, and those are unique to her and her alone. There's no necessity for Hunters to gain Banshee powers by association. Lore doesn't necessitate it.

That's an opinion, and wasn't the argument. Your argument is that the Tinker isn't lore, yet we have examples of "engineers" using their abilities that profession "engineers" can't use. That shows that there's not only a class of engineer far over the profession, but the Tinker is a lore-based entity.

There's also a gulf of difference between Sylvanas and Tinker abilities popping up in WoW.

Except they aren't, considering there is little-to-no Tinker lore that describes how they are actually different to Engineers.

And that's false as well. Multiple locations within Gnome and Goblin society are named for Tinkers, and Tinkers are mentioned in quests in WoW itself.

All we know is that they're a subset of Engineer by association. What distinctions we observe are literally based on game mechanics, but it's not to say they are two separate disciplines. That's like inferring Tauren Sunwalkers are a separate discipline from Paladins because they derive their faith from a Druidic source; yet that's not how the lore works. They're one and the same.

Uh, Xplodium Charge and/or Deth Lazor not being available at all in the Engineering profession is not an issue of game mechanics. It means that they don't belong in the engineering profession.

If you use technology to create something, you are an Engineer.

Building something from instructions/schematics isn't creating.

The lore doesn't make any difference between Profession and Class or Titles.

Oh yes it does. The game makes it quite clear that a profession isn't the same as a class. A class is what your character DOES. A profession is an optional activity you can choose to engage in to make extra money. This is reflected by how the gameplay translates the lore; You can have two main professions, you can drop professions at any point and keep your character. You can't drop your class, you can't have two classes at once. You MUST take a class to play the game.

One is clearly more important to your character than the other. The idea that you think they're "equal" is laughable.