Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
14
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    I was wondering when you'd crash in here like the kool-aid man with your wrong opinions about engineering. Class roles have NOTHING to do with the fantasy behind a class. Engineering more than functions as a way to fullfill the fantasy of a tinker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    CLASS roles have nothing to do with CLASS fantasy?

    Are you sure you want to continue?
    How’s this spin for those who believe engineering covers this fantasy.

    Tinkers are Pilots, consumers, users of the tool’s they are given.

    Like a combat pilot, they have an intimate understanding of how their machine works, but they cant engineer it into creation.

    The Tinker’s Union provides the mechs and gadgets, but the tinker utilizes it.

    Engineers actually build the gear. Like a hunter using a gun, they may not necessarily be an engineer to craft a gun, but they can sure as hell use it.

    Hell before Cata hunters needed ammo from engineers to even function.

  2. #62
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    How’s this spin for those who believe engineering covers this fantasy.

    Tinkers are Pilots, consumers, users of the tool’s they are given.

    Like a combat pilot, they have an intimate understanding of how their machine works, but they cant engineer it into creation.

    The Tinker’s Union provides the mechs and gadgets, but the tinker utilizes it.

    Engineers actually build the gear. Like a hunter using a gun, they may not necessarily be an engineer to craft a gun, but they can sure as hell use it.
    There's no need to spin it. Engineering is not a class, thus claiming that a non-class fulfills a class fantasy is beyond asinine.

    For example, one aspect of the Tinker class fantasy is to tank in a mech. You can't point to riding a mount as a substitute, because you can't tank in a mount.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    There's no need to spin it. Engineering is not a class, thus claiming that a non-class fulfills a class fantasy is beyond asinine.

    For example, one aspect of the Tinker class fantasy is to tank in a mech. You can't point to riding a mount as a substitute, because you can't tank in a mount.


    I know I agree, I'm just saying they think engineering covers it because you build gadgets and can chuck a bomb every 5 minutes.

    But with that logic then warriors and BS are one and the same.

    So if you can spin it where engineers are the producers while tinkers are the users, then they cant really rebuke you.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    - - - Updated - - -
    Undermine is just a city... If it wasn't part of the broken isles or BFA's island setting then how will it have it's own expansion?
    True, should have said Kezan-Expansion, but it amounts to the same. Like Zandalar not sinking which they could have handled better, like with the priests pulling a big ritual, they got simply say Kezan's hinted destruction was overstated. As for the size, it isn't as if any "continent" is remotely accurate. You can easily make enough zones out of it.

    Suggestion: Undermine is huge, with a safe player hub in the middle and a cartel war going on around it. The island itself could have one zone wrecked, with the Goblins trying to make a deal with furious elementals. Another has a Titan-Site revealed. Another has Vyrkul Pirates trying to take over. Another has Zandalari Rebels trying to take a temple. Another is a giant, partly collapsed cave with unbelievable tech from back when the Goblins were on the height of their intelligence. Another has the original starting zone for Goblins in need of rebuilding ... pretty much material, especially if you add a potential island or two and Nagas.

    The Dragon Island could have a similar size and potential, like a zone for each flight. In the end the question is how much effort Blizz is willing to put in a concept. A smaller focus might even make us feel like we made a larger difference. I fear the worst in this regard though.

  5. #65
    Man, I figured it wouldn't go past page 2 before it happened.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    CLASS roles have nothing to do with CLASS fantasy?

    Are you sure you want to continue?
    Tinkers are just people that use various gadgets and such in combat. There is nothing about Tinker fantasy that says they are anything BUT dps. As a result, engineering already accomplishes that.

    I'm sure you are already preparing your next tangent that is full of double standards and wrong statements as I type this.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    CLASS roles have nothing to do with CLASS fantasy?

    Are you sure you want to continue?
    No, they don't. You're emphasizing words to suit your narrative. Tank, Heal and Damage Dealer are functions. Aside from some snappy remarks by a few NPCs and a few 4th wall breaks, these three archetypes do not exist as such in the game world. When someone talks about Duids, the people of Azeroth don't think "Ah, he can heal, tank AND DPS!". They think about a mystical shapeshifter from an elite circle of naturalists that can cares for the wild and his allies and embodies nature. The class fantasy has exactly nothing to do with class roles. That's why the tank specc for the DK switched specializations. The narative of the class fantasy remained the same; an unholy warrior attacking his foes with the power of frost, blood and... well, unholyness. The specialization was switched.

    If Blizzard wants to make the Arkane mage a Tank, they will make the Arcane Mage a tank. That changes the class role, but it change the class fantasy, he's a spellcaster that draws from the arcane to protect himself and attack his foes, just as he does now.

    And Engineers are Tinkers. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge anyone a fully-blown Tinker class. Might be fun. But everything Tinkers do, lorewise, Engineers do. I know you disagree on that because it is your opinion that you need to be able to fulfill this as a class, but that's just an opinion, not a justification or facilitation for implementation. Tinkers have been an important part of WarCraft Lore, and I think you could do a lot with the class, but as it currently stands, the Tinker has been cannibalized into the Engineer Profession (doodads, mounts, toys, gear, weapons, Mechsuits) and the Hunter Class. (attacking with Rifles, explosives, traps, even missiles at some point.)

    It would also be incredibly weird for the Tinker to need to pick up the Engineering profession in order to do one of the main aspects of his fantasy, making himself a weapon.

    I'm not saying it ain't happening. I just don't see it happening. If I'm wrong and the Tinker fans get their wish, hooray for you. I mean it.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Tinkers are just people that use various gadgets and such in combat. There is nothing about Tinker fantasy that says they are anything BUT dps. As a result, engineering already accomplishes that.

    I'm sure you are already preparing your next tangent that is full of double standards and wrong statements as I type this.
    Hang on that's not true. All engineering does is let us create whimsical gadgets, pets, and the ability to chuck a bomb every 5 min. It doesn't open up a world of combat like a tinker would.

    Like Gazlowe, or mechadork.

    Also like I said, what about the spin where engineers produce, and tinker use. Like Hunters using guns and ammo before cata.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    Hang on that's not true. All engineering does is let us create whimsical gadgets, pets, and the ability to chuck a bomb every 5 min. It doesn't open up a world of combat like a tinker would.

    Like Gazlowe, or mechadork.

    Also like I said, what about the spin where engineers produce, and tinker use. Like Hunters using guns and ammo before cata.
    From a lore standpoint and a fantasy trope standpoint, they are exact same thing. The fact that you need to use in game MECHANICS to try and justify "class fantasy" proves I'm right.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    Tinkers is like being Tony Stark.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post

    Tinkers are Pilots, consumers, users of the tool's they are given.

    Like a combat pilot, they have an intimate understanding of how their machine works, but they cant engineer it into creation.

    The Tinker's Union provides the mechs and gadgets, but the tinker utilizes it.
    Get your story straight, man

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    But with that logic then warriors and BS are one and the same.
    Blacksmithing is about making the weapon, Warrior is about mastering it. One is a craft, one is a way of life.

    Tinker is about making and mastering your tech. Which is what Engineers do. Which is why you (used to) need an Engineering Skill to use the strongest Engineering items.

  12. #72
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,790
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Tinkers are just people that use various gadgets and such in combat. There is nothing about Tinker fantasy that says they are anything BUT dps. As a result, engineering already accomplishes that.

    I'm sure you are already preparing your next tangent that is full of double standards and wrong statements as I type this.
    Please point out the Engineering class in WoW that is showing up on DPS charts.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Please point out the Engineering class in WoW that is showing up on DPS charts.
    Once again, has nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. From a fantasy standpoint, engineers and tinkers are the same thing. From a lore standpoint, they are the same thing. We don't need tinkers as a class as much as we don't need dark rangers as a class.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Tinkers are just people that use various gadgets and such in combat. There is nothing about Tinker fantasy that says they are anything BUT dps. As a result, engineering already accomplishes that.

    I'm sure you are already preparing your next tangent that is full of double standards and wrong statements as I type this.
    So do you think you can play as a Tinker right now because you have Engineering? Is that really what you're saying?
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    So do you think you can play as a Tinker right now because you have Engineering? Is that really what you're saying?
    Pretty much, yeah. We don't need it to be a full class.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Pretty much, yeah. We don't need it to be a full class.
    Well we don't need anything.

    We don't need a new expansion.

    We don't need more raids. TBC and Classic are already proving to be popular and it's all regurgitated content.

    We don't need new races or classes.

    That's kind of besides the point. I'm not asking 'pretty much', I'm asking you if you consider Tinkers to be playable.

    Because there's only one fact here, and they're not playable. So whatever you consider to be the case, I mean, it's just for your own benefit.

    There are people who felt fine with Rogues portraying Demon Hunters and not needing the class. It still remained a fact that Demon Hunters were not playable until Legion.

    When it comes to considering what the game *needs*, then you're asking the wrong question. It's about what Blizzard and the fans want in the game that will carry the game forward for the next 10+ years. And generally speaking, it's new content all around.

    Just because you personally don't think the game needs anything doesn't really say anything about whether we would or should get it.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-06-08 at 07:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Once again, has nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. From a fantasy standpoint, engineers and tinkers are the same thing. From a lore standpoint, they are the same thing. We don't need tinkers as a class as much as we don't need dark rangers as a class.
    Right, but people want that game play mechanics with that same fantasy and I don't think engineering should stand in the way of that.

    Which is why there could be two possible fixes.

    1: Engineers produce the tech, Tinkers use it.

    2: Engineering is a lower form of tech mastery. Like a nurse compared to a doctor.

  18. #78
    Banned Teriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Undermine
    Posts
    18,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    No, they don't. You're emphasizing words to suit your narrative. Tank, Heal and Damage Dealer are functions. Aside from some snappy remarks by a few NPCs and a few 4th wall breaks, these three archetypes do not exist as such in the game world. When someone talks about Duids, the people of Azeroth don't think "Ah, he can heal, tank AND DPS!". They think about a mystical shapeshifter from an elite circle of naturalists that can cares for the wild and his allies and embodies nature. The class fantasy has exactly nothing to do with class roles. That's why the tank specc for the DK switched specializations. The narative of the class fantasy remained the same; an unholy warrior attacking his foes with the power of frost, blood and... well, unholyness. The specialization was switched.
    You're the one that's confused. If we're talking about class fantasy, we're talking about the functions of a class. Engineering cannot perform ANY functions of a class, so how can it fulfill a class fantasy?

    You're talking about lore for some reason, which is essentially meaningless. People don't play lore, they play classes. If someone observes Gazlowe piloting a mech into battle and wants to play that particular fantasy, engineering does not fulfill that fantasy in any meaningful way.

    It would also be incredibly weird for the Tinker to need to pick up the Engineering profession in order to do one of the main aspects of his fantasy, making himself a weapon.

    I'm not saying it ain't happening. I just don't see it happening. If I'm wrong and the Tinker fans get their wish, hooray for you. I mean it.
    Who says that a Tinker would need engineering? Based purely on the class archetype, a Tinker should instinctively be able to build and construct machines, just like Mages instinctively know magic, and Monks instinctively know martial arts.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    Once again, has nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. From a fantasy standpoint, engineers and tinkers are the same thing. From a lore standpoint, they are the same thing. We don't need tinkers as a class as much as we don't need dark rangers as a class.
    Uh it has everything to do with gameplay mechanics. If someone says I want to tank in a mech the way the Tinker hero in WC3 tanked in a mech, or the way Mekkatorque tanks in a mech in Battle of Daz'lar, or the way Gazlowe fights in a mech during Island Expeditions, there is NOTHING to fulfill that fantasy. They certainly can't fulfill that fantasy with engineering.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Well we don't need anything.

    We don't need a new expansion.

    We don't need more raids. TBC and Classic are already proving to be popular and it's all regurgitated content.

    We don't need new races or classes.

    That's kind of besides the point. I'm not asking 'pretty much', I'm asking you if you consider Tinkers to be playable.

    Because there's only one fact here, and they're not playable. So whatever you consider to be the case, I mean, it's just for your own benefit.

    There are people who felt fine with Rogues portraying Demon Hunters and not needing the class. It still remained a fact that Demon Hunters were not playable until Legion.

    'Pretty much' is a non-answer.
    Nice strawman. I'm not going to fall for it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Varx View Post
    Right, but people want that game play mechanics with that same fantasy and I don't think engineering should stand in the way of that.

    Which is why there could be two possible fixes.

    1: Engineers produce the tech, Tinkers use it.

    2: Engineering is a lower form of tech mastery. Like a nurse compared to a doctor.
    "People". Yeah sorry but most players realize that tinkers and engineers are the exact same thing. There's also absolutely zero evidence supporting that engineers make the items and tinkers use them. There's also zero evidence showing your second comment to be true as well.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post


    "People". Yeah sorry but most players realize that tinkers and engineers are the exact same thing. There's also absolutely zero evidence supporting that engineers make the items and tinkers use them. There's also zero evidence showing your second comment to be true as well.

    There are 3, Mechagon Tinkering, gnomish engineering, and goblin engineering. All 3 different masteries then require special training or equipment. Who's to say a Tinker class isn't the same?

Posting Permissions

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