Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Ielenia]

Because expansion classses have gotten all of their WC3 abilities either translated directly or indirectly.

Two questions:
• Where is the demon hunter's mana burn?
• Would the tech class just randomly spawning walking bombs with their abilities count as "indirectly translating" pocket factory?

You should view these abilities as they were when they were first introduced into WoW. The results will surprise you.

You need to stop flip-flopping back-and-forth with this "the way things used to be doesn't matter" and "the way things used to be are important". They're two diametrically opposing viewpoints. You'll end up getting severe whiplash from that.

[Teriz]

Reforged establishes that Gazlowe is an Engineer. It's still present in the campaign text if you haven't actually played through it. At no point in the campaign is he ever called a Tinker.

Which is fine. Engineer is often used as a title.

But the fact that he's using a Tinker skin now confirms that Engineers also use clawpacks and Robo Goblin form. That's what Reforged confirms. Tinker = Engineer.

Then where is the Clawpack and Robo-goblin form in the engineering profession?

Lore makes zero distinction between any of these. These levels don't exist when Engineering is ever regarded in the game. The name Tinker is synonymous with Engineering of all levels you discuss here as well.

Semantics.

Hobbyist level - WoD Garrison regarding hobbyists as intrepid Tinkerers
NPC Trainers - Very straight forward. Tinkmaster Overspark is an Engineering trainer. Master Tinker Trini is an Engineer NPC.
Super Engineers - They're still Engineers in WoW.
Tinker class - None formally exists in WoW. There is zero lore regarding any playable Tinker class. Every mention of a Tinker is the same as an Engineer.

Oh look, more semantics.

You mean like Blackfuse or the Island Expedition Engineers? Who are all Engineers?

And even more semantics.


Here's the deal, when you purposely override functional differences simply because the words are synonymous with each other, you're not being honest. Thus, it's really not worth having a discussion with you.

- - - Updated - - -

That is speculation. My speculation is just as likely as yours. Until we hear something definitive from Blizzard, all we have is speculation.

Blizzard already said that they used Necromancer concepts to create the DK. Them saying that no new class fits an expansion revolving around death and having Necromancers and Kel'thuzad seems like a pretty obvious fit. However, if you choose not to believe it, that's your business.

They actually retracted their statement about Reforged after it was revealed the story was not being reworked like they originally planned.

Yes, they kept the story the same as WC3. That doesn't change the fact that as a Warcraft game, it is considered canon.

Maybe this will help you out.

I have NEVER seen anything suggesting that Warlocks learned Metamorphosis from Illidan. The vast majority of player abilities are absolutely not canon. Using game mechanics to support lore debates is absolutely asinine.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Kanrethad_Ebonlocke

- - - Updated - - -

But weren't you who called the Iron Horde tech to be "low tech" since it's all steam engine stuff?

Yes, it is low tech for the most part, but it was still reliable and not prone to misfires.

I'm sorry, but no. The guy that put a "goblin tinker" model on Gazlowe for WC3:R is the same guy that put draenei buildings for orcs, as well as all the other lore inconsistencies displayed in graphic form.

And Blizzard didn't "make" Gazlowe a tinker.

Uh Gazlowe is a character owned by Blizzard, so you can't do anything officially to the character without Blizzard's permission. Who do you think published Heroes of the Storm and Reforged? Blizzard approved both of those games, and both of those games feature Gazlowe as a Tinker. Further, Blizzard also had to approve Gazlowe having Tinker abilities in WoW for Island Expeditions.

Do you think some random person is doing this under Blizzard's nose or something?

[Amsden]

It has nothing to do with Tinkerer... for me anyway. I has more to do with the fact Blizzard can't even balance the classes we already have, adding a new one to the mix would just make that problem worse.

[Teriz]

Two questions:
• Where is the demon hunter's mana burn?
• Would the tech class just randomly spawning walking bombs with their abilities count as "indirectly translating" pocket factory?

1. We've been over this countless times. Mana Burn was removed from the game because of balance concerns. Other mana draining spells like Drain mana, and Classic Wyvern Sting got similar treatment. As consolation, Demon Hunters got a PvP ability with Mana in the title (don't feel like looking it up).

2. No.

You need to stop flip-flopping back-and-forth with this "the way things used to be doesn't matter" and "the way things used to be are important". They're two diametrically opposing viewpoints. You'll end up getting severe whiplash from that.

Like I said I'm using the original iterations of the spells to show that when these abilities FIRST enter WoW they're closer translations to the original WC3 base. Over time they get changed due to balance and specialization changes. The relevant point for the Tinker is that that means that if they're brought in as a class their WC3 abilities would more than likely also be fairly close translations to the RTS roots.

[Ielenia]

Yes, it is low tech for the most part, but it was still reliable and not prone to misfires.

Probably because, again, it was low-tech? As in, steam engines, as opposed to complex machines with circuit boards, electricity, etc?

Uh Gazlowe is a character owned by Blizzard, so you can't do anything officially to the character without Blizzard's permission. Who do you think published Heroes of the Storm and Reforged? Blizzard approved both of those games, and both of those games feature Gazlowe as a Tinker. Further, Blizzard also had to approve Gazlowe having Tinker abilities in WoW for Island Expeditions.

Do you think some random person is doing this under Blizzard's nose or something?

I, again, will point out to all the inconsistencies between WC3:Reforged and the main canon lore that is the World of Warcraft game.

And, as @Triceron pointed out: all WC3:R does is to basically make official the idea that "engineer = tinker" since Gazlowe is still just referred to as "engineer" despite its model upgrade.

1. We've been over this countless times. Mana Burn was removed from the game because of balance concerns. Other mana draining spells like Drain mana, and Classic Wyvern Sting got similar treatment. As consolation, Demon Hunters got a PvP ability with Mana in the title (don't feel like looking it up).

So having the word "mana" in the title is enough to be "sufficiently similar"?

2. No.

So why does the WC3 ability has to go as-is from WC3 to WoW... and for other abilities you accept "indirect translations"? It sounds to me that you're having a case of "double-standards" here.

Like I said I'm using the original iterations of the spells to show that when these abilities FIRST enter WoW they're closer translations to the original WC3 base.

And the point here is that you're using "the way things used to be" as if they mattered anything, but when "the way things used to be" argument you used against you, you're quick to say "Things aren't like that anymore so the way things used to be doesn't matter anymore".

[Teriz]

Probably because, again, it was low-tech? As in, steam engines, as opposed to complex machines with circuit boards, electricity, etc?

Well the Iron Horde also had Dreadnaughts, the Grimrail Train, and the Iron Reaver. So it wasn't entirely crude.

I, again, will point out to all the inconsistencies between WC3:Reforged and the main canon lore that is the World of Warcraft game.

And, as @Triceron pointed out: all WC3:R does is to basically make official the idea that "engineer = tinker" since Gazlowe is still just referred to as "engineer" despite its model upgrade.

As I've said many times; All Tinkers are engineers. Not all engineers are Tinkers. Gazlowe being labeled an engineer doesn't suddenly not also make him a Tinker.

So having the word "mana" in the title is enough to be "sufficiently similar"?

Feel free to look up the ability in their PvP talent tree. It's obvious that that is not the case.

So why does the WC3 ability has to go as-is from WC3 to WoW... and for other abilities you accept "indirect translations"? It sounds to me that you're having a case of "double-standards" here.

Indirect translations tend to be reserved for abilities that would cause significant balance issues. Passive Evasion for example would be such an ability, which is why it was made active for Rogues.

Pocket Factory doesn't strike me as having a significant balancing problem, so I'd be surprised if it was a direct translation.

And the point here is that you're using "the way things used to be" as if they mattered anything, but when "the way things used to be" argument you used against you, you're quick to say "Things aren't like that anymore so the way things used to be doesn't matter anymore".

The only point here is that you're taking two entirely different arguments out of context.

[Triceron]

Then where is the Clawpack and Robo-goblin form in the engineering profession?

Clawpack is too whimsical, same as pocketfactory. Both aren't in the game at all, and likely never will be

Robo Goblin is the Sky Golem mount which is already used as Gazlowes Shredder.

Here's the deal, when you purposely override functional differences simply because the words are synonymous with each other, you're not being honest. Thus, it's really not worth having a discussion with you.

Thats because you have nothing to counter, no evidence to support your idea that Tinkers are a unique identity from Engineers in WoW. Lore is not semantics. Blackfuse is an Engineer, and no where is he called a Tinker. What is your argument against this? That its semantics and he is a Tinker because you say so?

I'd call that dishonest and ignorant.

I'll even point out how much if a fallacy it is to say all Tinkers are Engineers but not all Engineers are Tinkers. This is supposed to show thar Tinkers are different from Engineers right?

All Sunwalkers are Paladins, but not all Paladins are Sunwalkers. They are still the same class because Sunwalker is just another name for Paladins

Tinkers are treated as another name for Engineers in WoW lore.

[TheRevenantHero]

Which is fine. Engineer is often used as a title.



Then where is the Clawpack and Robo-goblin form in the engineering profession?



Semantics.



Oh look, more semantics.



And even more semantics.


Here's the deal, when you purposely override functional differences simply because the words are synonymous with each other, you're not being honest. Thus, it's really not worth having a discussion with you.

- - - Updated - - -



Blizzard already said that they used Necromancer concepts to create the DK. Them saying that no new class fits an expansion revolving around death and having Necromancers and Kel'thuzad seems like a pretty obvious fit. However, if you choose not to believe it, that's your business.



Yes, they kept the story the same as WC3. That doesn't change the fact that as a Warcraft game, it is considered canon.

Maybe this will help you out.



https://wow.gamepedia.com/Kanrethad_Ebonlocke

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, it is low tech for the most part, but it was still reliable and not prone to misfires.



Uh Gazlowe is a character owned by Blizzard, so you can't do anything officially to the character without Blizzard's permission. Who do you think published Heroes of the Storm and Reforged? Blizzard approved both of those games, and both of those games feature Gazlowe as a Tinker. Further, Blizzard also had to approve Gazlowe having Tinker abilities in WoW for Island Expeditions.

Do you think some random person is doing this under Blizzard's nose or something?

Gimme a link backing up your claim about Blizzard because I feel like you are misreading what was said like you did with that other article.

It's been said that only SOME things in WC3 were canon. The rest of it was retconned for WoW which is why they were initially rewrite the campaign so it better fit in with the canon lore. As we all know, they changed their mind on that leaving large portions of WC3 non-canon.

Oh yes ONE warlock learning something means ALL of them learned it that way. /s

[Aleax]

Tinkers are treated as another name for Engineers in WoW lore.

Currently, it's the case. Comes the Tinker (or similar name) and it's not anymore true.

Personally I look forward to more Engineering goodies in game, more than the Tinker class but it's just me.

[Teriz]

Clawpack is too whimsical, same as pocketfactory. Both aren't in the game at all, and likely never will be

Robo Goblin is the Sky Golem mount which is already used as Gazlowes Shredder.

Surely you can find a statement from Blizzard to back this up right?

Also if the argument is that the reason you don't see these abilities is because they're too whimsical, what's the reasoning behind Grav-O-bomb, or Deth Lazor, or Cluster Rockets, or X-Plodium charge? Those abilities aren't even close to being as whimsical as some of the items we see in Engineering.

Let's be honest, you saying that Clawpack and Pocket Factory is "too whimsical" is completely your opinion and bias.

Thats because you have nothing to counter, no evidence to support your idea that Tinkers are a unique identity from Engineers in WoW. Lore is not semantics. Blackfuse is an Engineer, and no where is he called a Tinker. What is your argument against this? That its semantics and he is a Tinker because you say so?

The Tinker in WC3 is evidence. It’s attributes and abilities are evidence. The profession lacking the Tinker’s abilities is evidence. The nature of professions and the nature of classes is evidence. Previous WoW class inclusions are evidence.

You’re ignoring that evidence to drone on about synonyms.

I'd call that dishonest and ignorant.

I'll even point out how much if a fallacy it is to say all Tinkers are Engineers but not all Engineers are Tinkers. This is supposed to show thar Tinkers are different from Engineers right?

All Sunwalkers are Paladins, but not all Paladins are Sunwalkers. They are still the same class because Sunwalker is just another name for Paladins

Tinkers are treated as another name for Engineers in WoW lore.

Except engineering isn’t a class, and Sunwalker lore was created in Cataclysm specifically to give the Horde a new Paladin race. We know this because there’s no history of Sunwalkers until Catsclysm. Sunwalkers never had their own abilities or attributes beyond a few lines of lore. The entire point is to justify Tauren Paladin and balance out class offerings between factions.

Tinkers have their own lore and have their own set of abilities and attributes that don’t exist in the profession. When confronted with that fact, you literally make up a reason why they’re not there. A reason that isn’t supported by any evidence from Blizzard, only your personal opinion.

That’s why this comparison doesn’t work. That is why your argument is dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

Gimme a link backing up your claim about Blizzard because I feel like you are misreading what was said like you did with that other article.

Canon
Everything released by Blizzard except mods and the table-top RPG is considered canon.[1] This includes games, novels, short stories, manga, and comics[1][2] as well as trailers and cinematics. Warcraft Encyclopedia, History of Warcraft, game manuals and original Warcraft RTS games are also considered canon but in some cases they are overwritten or modified by novels (i.e. history of eredar retconned in Rise of the Horde, War of the Ancients and its aftermath slightly altered by the time-travel in the novel, Dawn of the Aspects revealing the true history of the Aspects instead of a legend told in a History chapter, and Tides of Darkness with Beyond the Dark Portal setting a canon line of events for the first RTS games which had two versions of the ending).
The current history of Warcraft was slightly retconned by the WoW Chronicle series.[3]
No longer available quests that were not replaced by new information should be canon.[4]

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Lore

Question: Have you (Blizzard) ever revised the lore of the game after it came out? Like Jim's age. According to the lore, he is in his mid-30s right now, even though he looks a lot older.

Answer: We haven't knowingly done that. As more content is added to a given universe, by different teams, there is always the danger of unintentionally contradicting existing lore. But we have never intentionally done it. When something goes out the door at Blizzard—in a game, a novel, a manga, or anything other than mods or the table-top RPG—it's canon. This can be quite unwieldy; someone may have made a decision 12 years ago that was a well-reasoned, smart choice back then, but boxes us in today… but that's the hazard of game writing. We have to find a way to live with it and still tell our story.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150628...n/blog/7922536

It's been said that only SOME things in WC3 were canon. The rest of it was retconned for WoW which is why they were initially rewrite the campaign so it better fit in with the canon lore. As we all know, they changed their mind on that leaving large portions of WC3 non-canon.

Portions of the story being retconned doesn’t retcon the entire game. WoW has several retcons within it. It’s still considered canon as a whole.

Oh yes ONE warlock learning something means ALL of them learned it that way. /s

You need to reread it then, because Ebonlocke is the lore justification for Warlocks having Metamorphosis. Blizzard never created a lore justification for Warlocks to suddenly forget metamorphosis.

[markos82]

A hero is a skill?

Uh, okay.

You obviously have a problem to understand. Engineering is a skill, learned skill, crafting things using that is still a skill. He is a hero with a skill.....

[Teriz]

You obviously have a problem to understand. Engineering is a skill, learned skill, crafting things using that is still a skill. He is a hero with a skill.....

Every hero in WC3 was a hero with a skill, what's your point? Also based on a hero's skill with engineering, they can reach a point where they don't need to craft anything, they can use technology to simply produce.

[Triceron]

Surely you can find a statement from Blizzard to back this up right?

Wouldn't it be burden of proof on you to suggest Pocket Factory and Clawpacks need to be added to WoW? You are the one suggesting this would happen based on... Your own opinion. This is a subjective matter completely.

Also if the argument is that the reason you don't see these abilities is because they're too whimsical, what's the reasoning behind Grav-O-bomb, or Deth Lazor, or Cluster Rockets, or X-Plodium charge? Those abilities aren't even close to being as whimsical as some of the items we see in Engineering.

Because those abilities weren't derived from an April Fools joke.

The Tinker in WC3 is evidence. It’s attributes and abilities are evidence. The profession lacking the Tinker’s abilities is evidence. The nature of professions and the nature of classes is evidence. Previous WoW class inclusions are evidence.

No, that is correlation. Not evidence.

That is like saying we had evidence of WC3 having playable Pit Lords, therefore WoW needs playable Pitlords. That is not evidence, nor is it canon. Horde, Alliance, Scourge and Night Elves alike do not ever mention any canonical alliance with Pitlords.

Except engineering isn’t a class,

And neither is the Tinker. If it is synonymous with Engineer and is referred to by WoD synonymously as such then Tinker is another name for Engineers. We estavlished this many times. There is no lore in Wow that regards the Tinker name as a separate class, therefore no reason to cite NPC Tinkers as being distinct from an Engineer in lore as you inferred before.

The lore says they are the same.

Tinkers have their own lore and have their own set of abilities

So do Dreadlords and Firelords and Naga Sea Witches. Neither of them will likely be playable. Their class specific abilities may not even make it into the game.

Tinker does have a unique identity. So does the Alchemist. And with the above examples, I am illustrating that not every Hero in WC3 got translated into a playable class or race in WoW. Its all translated and adapted. WoW gameplay is not reflective of translating WC3 purely in mechanics and lore.

Alchemy and Engineering represent those two WC3 concepts. As for abilities, there are plenty in WC3 conpletely left out of WoW, like all of Naga Sea Witch abilities, Fire Lord Volcano, and Dreadlord Sleep. Its normal for abilities to be absent and not be shoehorned into classes. Even Mana shield was removed from Mages.

[Ielenia]

Well the Iron Horde also had Dreadnaughts, the Grimrail Train, and the Iron Reaver. So it wasn't entirely crude.

First: dreadnaughts are steam-powered. So is the Grimrail train. So, yeah, low-tech. But other than that: we don't know who built the Iron Reaver. It only appeared after the Iron Horde became Fel Horde, so, for all we know, it could have been made by Legion engineers.

Second: if you're going to consider dreadnaughts "advanced feats of engineering", keep in mind that they were designed by an orc.

As I've said many times; All Tinkers are engineers. Not all engineers are Tinkers.

And I, and others, have said it many times: there is no lore evidence for that. This a claim you love to make based on incomplete observation. That's like saying Master Tinker Trini is barely a low-key engineer because she's not shown building anything, nor selling anything tech-related other than a gnome-only alternative for the Flight Whistle.

Feel free to look up the ability in their PvP talent tree. It's obvious that that is not the case.

"Feel free to look up"? So when I tell you where to look for the evidence you ask for, you say "I can't be bothered to look for it. It's your job to present the evidence"... but now you feel entitled to do the exact same you criticized me for doing?

Indirect translations tend to be reserved for abilities that would cause significant balance issues. Passive Evasion for example would be such an ability, which is why it was made active for Rogues.

Pocket Factory doesn't strike me as having a significant balancing problem, so I'd be surprised if it was a direct translation.

So you don't think that spawning a destructible entity that constantly spawns other destructible entities is not going to be hard to balance? That Blizzard wouldn't go to a simpler and easier to balance option like the one I presented?

The only point here is that you're taking two entirely different arguments out of context.

It's not. You're talking "how things used to be", but they don't matter now, according to you.

[Lord Pebbleton]

Because Tinker is a fucking slur word to some of us. It's a highly offensive word to people of a certain background. It's pretty much like calling black people the N word.

What the actual what.

EDIT: Alright, I have read the explaination further down. Tbf that would be the worst reason not to implement the class. Every language has its quirks and if the name fits, dialects should not hold weight in the final decision.
There is a tauren NPC called Merda, which means "shit" in Italian, but that's fine because the word means nothing in standard English.

[OFiveNine]

What the actual what.

EDIT: Alright, I have read the explaination further down. Tbf that would be the worst reason not to implement the class. Every language has its quirks and if the name fits, dialects should not hold weight in the final decision.
There is a tauren NPC called Merda, which means "shit" in Italian, but that's fine because the word means nothing in standard English.

Yeah that's probably one of the dumbest reasons i've seen in this thread so far lmao

[Katchii]

Stark built the arc reactor without schematics.

Just popping in to say that the arc reactor he built without schematics in the cave, while an amazing piece of technology, was flawed and almost killed him.

The perfected version he built was built from a schematic/ plan his father left for him.

As to his building process, we see him constantly making plans on the computer as he's designing them to make sure they make sense and are feasible before actually fabricating them.

So, even a mechanical and technical genius uses schematics and plans to build things.

Why are you still so hung up on the idea that a Tinker wouldn't ever use a schematic, even one that they themselves create, and would build everything from scratch?

[Teriz]

Wouldn't it be burden of proof on you to suggest Pocket Factory and Clawpacks need to be added to WoW? You are the one suggesting this would happen based on... Your own opinion. This is a subjective matter completely.

I never stated that they needed to be added to WoW. My point is that as long as the engineering profession doesn't have those abilities, the engineering profession is not a representative of the Tinker hero.

Because those abilities weren't derived from an April Fools joke.

Irrelevant. The Tinker is canon lore due to Reforged, so it doesn't matter how it was brought into WC3 back in 2004.

No, that is correlation. Not evidence.

Actually it IS evidence. The lore of the Tinker specifically mentions the Claw Pack/Hammer Tank, so without that, you don't have a Tinker.

That is like saying we had evidence of WC3 having playable Pit Lords, therefore WoW needs playable Pitlords. That is not evidence, nor is it canon. Horde, Alliance, Scourge and Night Elves alike do not ever mention any canonical alliance with Pitlords

Actually that's a Straw man, since playing a Pitlord would be outside the bounds of WoW's race/class options. The Tinker falls well within WoW's race/class options.

And neither is the Tinker. If it is synonymous with Engineer and is referred to by WoD synonymously as such then Tinker is another name for Engineers. We estavlished this many times. There is no lore in Wow that regards the Tinker name as a separate class, therefore no reason to cite NPC Tinkers as being distinct from an Engineer in lore as you inferred before.

The lore says they are the same.

Again false. The lore specifically mentions the Tinker's clawback. Without the clawback (and the associated abilities) you don't have a Tinker. Engineering doesn't have of those abilities or attributes, so it isn't a Tinker.

So do Dreadlords and Firelords and Naga Sea Witches. Neither of them will likely be playable. Their class specific abilities may not even make it into the game.

A continuation of your earlier straw-mannirg. Pathetic.

Tinker does have a unique identity. So does the Alchemist. And with the above examples, I am illustrating that not every Hero in WC3 got translated into a playable class or race in WoW. Its all translated and adapted. WoW gameplay is not reflective of translating WC3 purely in mechanics and lore.

EVERY WC3 hero got translated. The one that hasn't is the Tinker and Alchemist, because they have a technology theme not present in existing classes.

Alchemy and Engineering represent those two WC3 concepts. As for abilities, there are plenty in WC3 conpletely left out of WoW, like all of Naga Sea Witch abilities, Fire Lord Volcano, and Dreadlord Sleep. Its normal for abilities to be absent and not be shoehorned into classes. Even Mana shield was removed from Mages.

There's a difference between one ability from a WC3 hero not being translated, and NONE of the abilities from the WC3 hero ever being translated. Their also not present in Engineering, so they weren't translated there as well, no matter how many semantic arguments you attempt to use to avoid that fact.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Ielenia;52536327]First: dreadnaughts are steam-powered. So is the Grimrail train. So, yeah, low-tech. But other than that: we don't know who built the Iron Reaver. It only appeared after the Iron Horde became Fel Horde, so, for all we know, it could have been made by Legion engineers.

Second: if you're going to consider dreadnaughts "advanced feats of engineering", keep in mind that they were designed by an orc.

I do believe that the only thing I said was that it wasn't crude.

And I, and others, have said it many times: there is no lore evidence for that. This a claim you love to make based on incomplete observation. That's like saying Master Tinker Trini is barely a low-key engineer because she's not shown building anything, nor selling anything tech-related other than a gnome-only alternative for the Flight Whistle.

As I've mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that there are exclusive Tinker attributes and abilities not present in the engineering profession, and not displayed by other "engineers" in the game pretty much confirm this fact. Further, Tinker lore itself mentions the clawpack specifically.

"Feel free to look up"? So when I tell you where to look for the evidence you ask for, you say "I can't be bothered to look for it. It's your job to present the evidence"... but now you feel entitled to do the exact same you criticized me for doing?

The ability is called Mana Break.

So you don't think that spawning a destructible entity that constantly spawns other destructible entities is not going to be hard to balance? That Blizzard wouldn't go to a simpler and easier to balance option like the one I presented?

Not at all. It has severe limitations, and damage, cool downs, and other balance checks can bring it in line if it gets out of control, which I highly doubt.

It's not. You're talking "how things used to be", but they don't matter now, according to you.

If you want to explain how I'm contradicting myself in your mind, by all means.

- - - Updated - - -

Just popping in to say that the arc reactor he built without schematics in the cave, while an amazing piece of technology, was flawed and almost killed him.

The perfected version he built was built from a schematic/ plan his father left for him.

As to his building process, we see him constantly making plans on the computer as he's designing them to make sure they make sense and are feasible before actually fabricating them.

So, even a mechanical and technical genius uses schematics and plans to build things.

Why are you still so hung up on the idea that a Tinker wouldn't ever use a schematic, even one that they themselves create, and would build everything from scratch?

A better question would be why are people so hung up about a Tinker NOT using a schematic? Is that really an important point to anyone discussing this, or are people just trying to find a ridiculous way to tie the Tinker to the profession?

[Vampyrr]

With regard to socttish/irish travellers, aka gypsies.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/tinker

COUNTABLE NOUN
Some people refer to any traveller or gipsy, especially one who is Irish, as a tinker.
[British, offensive]

Although it was more the word "Tinks" that was used where I lived. It's still pretty much calling us the N word. That's how we view it.

- - - Updated - - -



That's what it used to be used for, but it was still considered offensive and not something you'd say to their faces. Despite the family from Grandmother down having settled in the area, we were still refered to as such. Although not many were ever brave enough to say it to our faces.

The fact you can say the one word but not the other means it is NOT the same as using the n word.

[Katchii]

A better question would be why are people so hung up about a Tinker NOT using a schematic? Is that really an important point to anyone discussing this, or are people just trying to find a ridiculous way to tie the Tinker to the profession?

No it's not a better question, you're the only one with that question. Because you seem to be the only one pushing this narrative that only super amazing, godly smart, mechanical geniuses can be Tinkers as if they're something else entirely to an Engineer (not the profession, the actual title as used in game). You yourself have even FINALLY admitted that Tinker's ARE Engineers.

Which means nothing because Tinkers are engineers.

Tinker's are not some completely alternate entity to an Engineer, they're simply highly accomplished, noteworthy and battle oriented Engineers. Again, not referring to the profession specifically, just the title of the group of folks who do what engineers do. And Engineers use schematics, they don't always build stuff from scratch.