Tinker Discussion Thread

[Wreckeded]

When will Illidan's fangirls learn shirtless Elves will never compete with giant robots with rocket powered fists.

[Rhamses]

http://www.wowhead.com/item=65357

That's an item. An item doesn't form the basis for a class in WoW. In order for you to form the basis of a class, you need groups of people using the theme, and having abilities associated with that theme. For example, a technology class can exist because there are several groups of NPCs that are using the technology theme, have titles associated to the technology theme, and have several abilities attached to that theme.

More specifically, a basis in Warcraft 3 would be preferable, since all classes can be traced back to that source. We have two technology themed heroes and several tech themed units from WC3 that currently have no class attached to it.

[godofslack]

Wrong. From a purely lore perspective, Demon Hunters have no leg to stand on. They exist in the world the same way Rexxar represents non-Hunter Beastmasters. (Read: Poorly with much confusion.) They exist in the same way Twilight Priests represent a new side of priesthood unknown to our priests. (Read: Poorly and oddly similar to Shadow.) Demon Hunter 'lore' is completely encompassed by EVERY OTHER CLASS IN GAME. Their 'lore' is "We want to kill the demons. We must use the demons. People don't like us for using demons."

Tinkers suffer from a similar situation, but unlike Demon Hunters who would require a massive reworking of their lore to differentiate them from existing classes in lore (which in turn breaks them from their current theme), all it takes is "Gallywix and Mechatorque were Tinkers all along, not engineers!" and suddenly you have separated Engineers from Tinkers enough to make them a class. You can't do that with Demon Hunters because Warlocks are already a class; Calling every Warlock a Demon Hunter isn't an option. Calling every Demon Hunter a Warlock is a much easier decision.

Illidan is not a rogue or a warlock he's a demon hunter, every demon hunter character in the entire game is represented unambiguously as a demon hunter.

[Raiju]

That's an item. An item doesn't form the basis for a class in WoW. In order for you to form the basis of a class, you need groups of people using the theme, and having abilities associated with that theme. For example, a technology class can exist because there are several groups of NPCs that are using the technology theme, have titles associated to the technology theme, and have several abilities attached to that theme.

More specifically, a basis in Warcraft 3 would be preferable, since all classes can be traced back to that source. We have two technology themed heroes and several tech themed units from WC3 that currently have no class attached to it.

Now you're just shifting the goal posts despite WC3's 'source' for tinkers being explained numerous times as non-canon.

[Ielenia]

All content in a game is held in the same regard until official sources state otherwise, it is exactly as valid to question the canon of anything in the game.

No, it's not. Just because the Tinker shows in the Battle.Net website for the game Warcraft 3 doesn't mean it is canon. It never showed up anywhere in the Warcraft universe. They are not canon.

[Rhamses]

Now you're just shifting the goal posts despite WC3's 'source' for tinkers being explained numerous times as non-canon.

Its cannon within the Warcraft universe. Its cannon because the Tinker actually exists in the game. Its cannon because Blizzard has designated Gazlowe as a Tinker within Warcraft.

[Raiju]

Except the rainbow generator doesn't have any source in WC3 AT ALL. Whereas the Tinker did exist in WC3, regardless of it being multiplayer only.

The Pandaren Brewmaster only existed if you purposely went off the main story quest in single player and did a silly task that is widely regarded as non-canon. Yet here we are with martial artist Brewmaster Pandaren in MoP.

I was more comparing to tinkers, who have no canon reference merely an "outside the story" reference. Just like the rainbow generator. Outside of popularity (which if I had the fevered determination of Teriz I'm sure I could pluck up), my rainbowologist has as much as grounds as the tinker with his hammer pack.

@Rhamses HOTS is not canon, at all. Unless you mean it's a cannon then yes, he may get an ability involving a cannon.

[Ielenia]

several tech themed units from WC3 that currently have no class attached to it.

Just curious: what 'tech themed units from WC3' were you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Its cannon within the Warcraft universe. Its cannon because the Tinker actually exists in the game. Its cannon because Blizzard has designated Gazlowe as a Tinker within Warcraft.

1. It's not canon within the Warcraft universe. Stop using lack of evidence as evidence itself;
2. Tinkers as in WC3 do not exist in WoW. Tinkers as in engineers exist. The profession tinkers. They're the tinkers;
3. Gazlowe is designed as an engineer in Warcraft. If you're using HotS, that game is not canon to WoW, just like the RPG books, TGC and Hearthstone.

[Rhamses]

@Rhamses HOTS is not canon, at all. Unless you mean it's a cannon then yes, he may get an ability involving a cannon.

Its cannon becase the Tinker is also mentioned in WoW;

These are the last known deposits of kaja'mite anywhere. This is the raw stuff that made us the genius tinkerers and alchemists we are today. If that's not worth a bazillion macaroons, I don't know what is!

http://www.wowhead.com/quest=14124/l...e-the-kajamite

That's a direct reference to the WC3 hero units, the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist.

- - - Updated - - -

Just curious: what 'tech themed units from WC3' were you talking about?

Siege Engine, Flying Machine, Mortar Team, Shredders, and Sappers

[Raiju]

Except once again we have goblin engineering - tinker being synonymous with engineer unless you're suggesting they're separate and we never have any point in wow that it's differentiated?

[Ielenia]

Its cannon becase the Tinker is also mentioned in WoW;
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=14124/l...e-the-kajamite
That's a direct reference to the WC3 hero units, the Goblin Tinker and the Goblin Alchemist.

You would be right if the tinker word didn't have such a broad range of meaning. It could be the WC3 tinker hero unit, but it can simply also be how goblins prefer to call their engineers. Engineers tinker, they are the tinkers of WoW.

Oh, and no, HotS is not canon. Stop making a fool of yourselves by quoting it as such when there's so many things in HotS that deviate from WoW.

[Raiju]

No, outside of popularity they have engineering - rainbowologist could use alchemy in EXACTLY the same fashion.

[Ielenia]

Siege Engine (1), Flying Machine (2), Mortar Team (3), Shredders (4), and Sappers (5)

1. Siege engines already exist in WoW. Never been through Dun Morogh or most Dwarven encampments?
2. Flying Machine and Turbo-Charged Flying Machine;
3. Portable Bronze Mortar and also, again, in Dun Morogh, just outside the dwarven starting area, there's a mortar team practicing;
4. Sky Golem and other shredders you use in quests throughout WoW;
5. Goblin Sapper Charge (not to mention having a class based on suicidal goblins is a bit dumb, if you ask me...), and other sapper charges.

[Rhamses]

Except once again we have goblin engineering - tinker being synonymous with engineer unless you're suggesting they're separate and we never have any point in wow that it's differentiated?

Except we have the Tinker from WC3 who had different abilities and capabilities than the profession can muster. We also have technologists in WoW who can also perform abilities far beyond what the profession can do.

Also, just FYI, Enchanter is synonomous with Mage, Warlock, and Shaman.

- - - Updated - - -

/snip

And what class is this attached to?

[godofslack]

And Rexxar is represented purely as a Beastmaster, yet shares odd similarities to Hunters. Twilight Priests are oddly similar to Shadow Priests, but are unambiguously Twilight Priests, NOT Shadow Priests. Blackfuse's title is 'Siegecrafter', I suppose that means he's not an engineer? Or is Uther not a Paladin because his title is 'the Lightbringer'? Or is Necromancer going to be a class because we have NPCs in game that are specifically Necromancers, not Death Knights?

'Unambiguous' titles mean nothing in lore. A Demon Hunter is one who uses demonic power to fight Demons. With agile and swift motions. It is literally a fusion of Warlock's fight-fire-with-fire mentality with a Rogue's agile combat style. There is nothing else to them.

Rexxar is represented clearly as a hunter as that's his official class (he was chosen to represent the hunter in Hearthstone) where as Illidan isn't referred to as a warlock or rogue in any official sources.

[Ielenia]

Except we have the Tinker from WC3 who had different abilities and capabilities than the profession can muster. We also have technologists in WoW who can also perform abilities far beyond what the profession can do.
Also, just FYI, Enchanter is synonomous with Mage, Warlock, and Shaman.

Yet the 'tinker' name was never used as a direct reference to the WC3 tinker. It is merely used as a name, a nickname for engineers in the goblin society.

As for your 'enchanter is synonym with mage, warlock and shaman', that doesn't ring true in Azeroth where each of those names mean something different from each other.

- - - Updated - - -

And what class is this attached to?

No class uses such a ginormous tank/mount/whatever in combat. Everything else is already covered by the profession.

[Rhamses]

Yet the 'tinker' name was never used as a direct reference to the WC3 tinker. It is merely used as a name, a nickname for engineers in the goblin society.

You're basing this on what exactly?

And what's it used for in Gnomish society? After all, it exists there as well.

[Ielenia]

You're basing this on what exactly?

On the fact there are no WC3 Tinkers in WoW at all. Namely, goblins with a 'claw/tank pack' combo on their backs.

And what's it used for in Gnomish society? After all, it exists there as well.

Simply used as a verb. To tinker.

[Raiju]

So using HotS, which is non canon, to suggest Gazlowe is a Tinker is bad, but if you say Rexxar is a Hunter cause of Hearthstone (also non-canon) it's fine?

Agreed with this (cba with the thread in general but I've been wanting to use this point since i thought about it earlier today!)

In hearthstone warlocks can turn into an eredar lord, where's my eredarmorphosis spell in wow?

I agree that enchanter and mage are the same, although shaman not in the slightest. I don't see why enchanting became a profession, rather than blacksmiths/leatherworkers/tailors breaking down their respective items into raw pieces (a fractional amount) as they are the ones with understanding of them. That being said this was part of vanilla wow and the team seems very different in terms of design intentions from... well sunwell onward.

As for why rainbowologist is related to alchemists? I cba to write up a class design like others do, but it's hardly a stretch of the imagination. Yes the name was chosen to mock but hte fact that it has about as much standing as a tinker shows that the only thing tinker has going for it is indeed popularity (which it still isn't winning at)

[Lochton]

Yet the 'tinker' name was never used as a direct reference to the WC3 tinker. It is merely used as a name, a nickname for engineers in the goblin society.

You're basing this on what exactly?

And what's it used for in Gnomish society? After all, it exists there as well.

Wasn't just a nick for the engineers in the Goblin or Gnomish society. It was a title of acknowledgement. You being a Tinker, means that you are successful in your community, you have gotten approval of your creations. I mean, High Tinker Mekkatorque, you don't call your leader by some nickname. And harder to discuss with the Goblins due to so many different "Top heads".