1. #3441
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    We can though. Just pick up the engineering profession.
    The Tinker’s abilities are not in the engineering profession.

  2. #3442
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    The Tinker’s abilities are not in the engineering profession.
    In your mind only. Everyone else realizes everything the tinker does is replicated by engineering items.

  3. #3443
    Quote Originally Posted by cocomen2 View Post
    Same goes for Baker , translate cooking prof into playable class. (why not?)

    Anyone who thinks Baker couldn't be a class just lacks imagination.
    I mean there is a difference. Tinker is clearly easier to make a combat class around.

    But yes I'm sure someone with sufficient imagination and inspiration could make a interesting baker class...

    Healing spec seems obvious no?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Tinkers already exist. They're called engineers
    Accept the Goblin Tinkers in Warcraft 3 aren't playable. And engineers don't have literally all technology covered

  4. #3444
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    In your mind only. Everyone else realizes everything the tinker does is replicated by engineering items.
    You’d have to be a silly individual to believe that building a gem encrusted robot is the same as building a pocket factory that rapidly produces robotic soldiers.

    I also find it amusing that the same people making this ridiculous argument are the same people who refuse to accept that DKs are Necromancers because they wear plate armor.

  5. #3445
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    I mean there is a difference. Tinker is clearly easier to make a combat class around.

    But yes I'm sure someone with sufficient imagination and inspiration could make a interesting baker class...

    Healing spec seems obvious no?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Accept the Goblin Tinkers in Warcraft 3 aren't playable. And engineers don't have literally all technology covered
    yes they really do lmao. Claw packs and pocket factories simply don't exist in canon anymore.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You’d have to be a silly individual to believe that building a gem encrusted robot is the same as building a pocket factory that rapidly produces robotic soldiers.

    I also find it amusing that the same people making this ridiculous argument are the same people who refuse to accept that DKs are Necromancers because they wear plate armor.
    As I just said, pocket factory doesn't exist in canon anymore. And DKs and necromancers are different because unlike tinker, they both exist separate from each other in the game. Meanwhile, there is literally zero separation between tinker and engineer.

  6. #3446
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Tinkers already exist. They're called engineers
    That’s like saying healers shouldn’t exist back when we had First Aid xD

  7. #3447
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    yes they really do lmao. Claw packs and pocket factories simply don't exist in canon anymore.
    Says who, a random thread poster :L

    This is the thing that estounds me is about that argument. "x-ist canon" doesn't work when blizzard can just make new canon if they want. Spaceships weren't canon expect now they are.

    If blizzard want to reintroduce older stuff to design a new class they just will.

  8. #3448
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaver View Post
    That’s like saying healers shouldn’t exist back when we had First Aid xD
    That is the most ridiculous comparison I have EVER heard.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    Says who, a random thread poster :L

    This is the thing that estounds me is about that argument. "x-ist canon" doesn't work when blizzard can just make new canon if they want. Spaceships weren't canon expect now they are.

    If blizzard want to reintroduce older stuff to design a new class they just will.
    Ok well then tinker can be literally any race ever since Blizzard can just change the canon whenever they want right?

  9. #3449
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    That is the most ridiculous comparison I have EVER heard.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Ok well then tinker can be literally any race ever since Blizzard can just change the canon whenever they want right?
    Sure? I mean Monks can basically.

    Some people might have a hard time accepting say Tauren Tinkers I guess but people seemed to have gotten over Taruen Paladins so....

    I'm not arguing for tinkers I'm arguing against Anti-tinkers.

  10. #3450
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    Sure? I mean Monks can basically.

    Some people might have a hard time accepting say Tauren Tinkers I guess but people seemed to have gotten over Taruen Paladins so....
    they have not gotten over tauren paladins. it is still being joked about.
    the report systems sucks and the mods are bias.

  11. #3451
    Quote Originally Posted by The Council View Post
    they have not gotten over tauren paladins. it is still being joked about.
    I think most people are.

  12. #3452
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    Sure? I mean Monks can basically.

    Some people might have a hard time accepting say Tauren Tinkers I guess but people seemed to have gotten over Taruen Paladins so....

    I'm not arguing for tinkers I'm arguing against Anti-tinkers.
    I argue against tinker because people like Teriz want it to remain restricted to gnomes and goblins. Which makes me prefer that the class just never becomes playable.

  13. #3453
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    As I just said, pocket factory doesn't exist in canon anymore. And DKs and necromancers are different because unlike tinker, they both exist separate from each other in the game. Meanwhile, there is literally zero separation between tinker and engineer.
    Based on what? Blizzard not putting them in WoW yet?

    Gazlowe and the Tinker both have claw packs in WC3 and WC3:R. According to Blizzard, that would make them canon lore. So that simply means we haven't encountered those devices in WoW yet.

    Interestingly though, we've encountered the technology for Pocket Factory already;

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Town-In-A-Box

  14. #3454
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    He’s about twice as large as a Tauren, far larger than a pocket factory.
    You mean the pocket factory which was bigger than guard towers?

    So in other words you can’t find any NPC abilities in WoW that have level requirements.
    Why would I? It has nothing to do with player classes.

    Rock-it turret, Deth Lazor, and Robo Goblin aren’t bombs.
    But they are technology which is covered by Engineering.

    I mean what exactly are you looking for in terms of themes and avilities that Engineering doesn't cover? It seems your arguments are very specific about Technology which you deem not fit in Engineering, despite many examples of similar examples that already fit.

    If you want to say a Tinker should have new abilities then sure. However your argument is that these abilities haven't been translated in the game, and Engineering already covers a bunch of that. Your specificity requiring clawpacks and pocket factories and clockwork goblins specifically is just your personal wishlist, not any means for a new class.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-01-24 at 12:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well, yes. Our opinions are below the canon lore of the game, because we're not the ones writing the lore.

  15. #3455
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I argue against tinker because people like Teriz want it to remain restricted to gnomes and goblins. Which makes me prefer that the class just never becomes playable.
    I mean I get why asethically those races make more sense. But it would be piss easy to write some lore about how all the playerable tinkers are the most gifted of thier races.

  16. #3456
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Based on what? Blizzard not putting them in WoW yet?

    Gazlowe and the Tinker both have claw packs in WC3 and WC3:R. According to Blizzard, that would make them canon lore. So that simply means we haven't encountered those devices in WoW yet.

    Interestingly though, we've encountered the technology for Pocket Factory already;

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Town-In-A-Box
    They've had the opportunity to add them for the past 16 years and they haven't. There's CLEARLY a reason for that especially after MoP and WoD giving them ample opportunity to introduce them. As a result, they just don't exist anymore and you should really stop using them as examples.

  17. #3457
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I argue against tinker because people like Teriz want it to remain restricted to gnomes and goblins. Which makes me prefer that the class just never becomes playable.
    You do know that the Tinker is overwhelmingly a Goblin concept right? If you don't like Goblins or Gnomes, you're probably not going to like the Tinker.

  18. #3458
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    I mean I get why asethically those races make more sense. But it would be piss easy to write some lore about how all the playerable tinkers are the most gifted of thier races.
    Goblins and gnomes are the LEAST played races in the game. Making tinker restricted to those races would do nothing but piss fans off that want to try out the new class and cause next to nobody to play the class.

  19. #3459
    The Insane Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,200
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    They've had the opportunity to add them for the past 16 years and they haven't. There's CLEARLY a reason for that especially after MoP and WoD giving them ample opportunity to introduce them. As a result, they just don't exist anymore and you should really stop using them as examples.
    So do you think Blizzard is done bringing classes into WoW?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Goblins and gnomes are the LEAST played races in the game. Making tinker restricted to those races would do nothing but piss fans off that want to try out the new class and cause next to nobody to play the class.
    Why would fans be pissed off? If you're a fan of the Tinker you'd have no problem playing a Goblin or a Gnome. lol!

  20. #3460
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    You do know that the Tinker is overwhelmingly a Goblin concept right? If you don't like Goblins or Gnomes, you're probably not going to like the Tinker.
    It has nothing to do with the aesthetics. The races themselves look like utter dogshit and their voicelines are grating. I don't care if the look of the abilities would maybe look like goblin stuff. I just don't want to play the two worst races in the game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    So do you think Blizzard is done bringing classes into WoW?
    Yes. I really do. And I hope that I'm right. Because they can't even balance the ones that are already in the game.

Posting Permissions

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