Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[Kyriani]

The problem is that Blizzard has created melee based Necromancers in other games, so they don’t view spell-casting vs melee as a valid distinction.

Maybe that alone isn't enough of a distinction, but I feel that the class I described above is certainly distinct from Death Knights.

[Dancaris]

There has been polls and threads on these forums and the official WoW forums.So I absolutely can speak from majority since it's what the majority of players have said on the forums.

Nope, even if this polls exist - forum people are not a majority of playerbase, u know?

There are BIG differences between rogue and warrior.

And for that perspective - again, nope. Warrior hits enemy with his weapon, rogue hits enemy with his weapon, paladin hits enemy with his weapon. DK hits enemy with his weapon. And so on - mage use spells for kill an enemy, so is a warlock, so is spriest and so is shaman and druid. Whats impotant here - is details. How your hero defeat his/her foe. Will it be big fireballs, diseases, pets, lava or energy of a stars.
And that's the point. Warrior engineer still smashes foes with axe and once use grenade, rogue engineer use daggers and poisons and sometimes use rockets, hunter use bow and pets and periodically use jeeves or blingotron. But Tinker cant use magic, cant use animals, elements, stealth or something like that. Just a machinery and ammo.

[Ielenia]

So you're suggesting that it's unreasonable to expect a spell like Deathbolt or Drain Life to be associated with Necromancer class fantasy? Or that it's unreasonable or obtuse to think so?

I'm saying it's dishonest to say "it must have this specific ability", when Teriz vehemently denies that exact same argument when it's used against him.

And, again, what's the problem with warlocks having Deathbolt? Warlocks have Deathbolt, drain life, haunt, etc... and yet death knights exist? You know, the class the overwhelming majority (in my experience) of anti-necromancers say it's the necromancer class in WoW?

- - - Updated - - -

I’m sure it is canon. But then again we had Goblins like Blackfuse pop up after that was written, and his inventions weren’t prone to any of that, and he was brilliant enough to repurpose Titan and Legion technology, and be the backbone of the Iron Horde.

But, as it has been pointed out numerous times to you, a playable tech class would not be Helix or Gelbin, just like player druids aren't Malfurion, player priests aren't Anduin, etc. They are notable, VIP NPCs, not bound by the rules and constraints imposed by the game upon player characters.

I didn’t write it. Just pointing out that it’s canon according to Blizzard. The salient point is that the Tinker is canon, and Gazlowe is one.

If you are going to take WC3:R as canon, then you have to take all of what is in the story campaigns as canon, and, as pointed out, there are many lore inconsistencies that you'll have to take as canon, and reconcile with current canon.

Merely pointing out that if you look at Diablo for example, abilities like Drain Life are commonly found in the necromancer class.

So... now you're being dishonest again. Because you're looking at the Diablo necromancer as a "template" of what Blizzard would do for a possible necromancer player class, and yet you wrote this to me, one year ago, almost to the day:

Because you used Diablo as the template for the class. Blizzard wouldn't do that,

So which is it? Would Blizzard take inspiration from Diablo, or they wouldn't?

- - - Updated - - -

Tinkers would be able to create devices and machines without a schematic

Engineers are inventors as well, you know? Lore and all...

or materials.

... So tinkers are spellcasters now, able to create stuff out of literal nowhere? "Let me hammer this empty space for a few seconds, and... there we go! I've created a rocket!"

[ExtremelyCrusty]

Well if you can only be one as a Gnome or Goblin that just makes them not as desirable.

[Ielenia]

Wait, you think the reasons for not carrying staggering amounts of materials for class abilities is the direct result of a genius level intellect of a hypothetical tinker character instead of gameplay related? Just like genius level hunters don't bother with ammunition anymore?
Or pet food.
Or rogue and poisons.
Or warriors' throwing axes.

Of course he does. Because it's "game mechanics" and "game mechanics are lore". I mean look at this list of game mechanics that Teriz believes to be canon lore.

[prwraith]

The ravings of a lunatic continue jesus. 37 pages.

I'm impressed by the dedication to an awful class

[Dalheim]

A mechanic (tinker) that also acts with Necromancy? That will even piss off MORE people. Genius

Nah, was just thinking of an Engineer/Mekgineer Caster.

But a Necro Tinker works too.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

The ravings of a lunatic continue jesus. 37 pages.

I'm impressed by the dedication to an awful class

Did you really post here to just call out and flame a poster for talking about a possible class you dislike?

[Nynax]

This is a terrible idea, and something Blizzard have moved further and further away from for various very obvious reasons.

- If the turrets are all your damage, that removes most of the skill
- Micro management is not a popular playstyle at all
- The idea of static, placed turret flat-out wouldnt work in raids, dungeons, and especially pvp
- PvP in particular would be an absolute clusterfuck - turrets everywhere just blasting everyone even though the player was hiding in a corner somewhere accross the map.
- PvE would be a shambles - imagine a M+ where you have to keep stopping and waiting for the tinker to place turrets, dealing ZERO damage while moving to the next pack.
- Any boss with a phase transition or large room wouldnt work.

So although i appreciate the logic behind wanting this sort of playstyle, it would NEVER happen - it just doesnt work in any format.

On the surface, I totally agree haha. Wouldn't work in the least. But that's what makes it interesting!

I think part of it is all just number balance! cast times for new turrets, turret duration, strength of mechanical pets. Targeting based on something akin to a Hunter's Mark. Make it beneficial to upkeep a live turret, but not too punishing to build a new one.

Or if "set up" is an issue, maybe the "build turret" skill has something like three stacks but as instant. However, you also have a "Tinker" skill that improves your turrets duration and boosts their damage. So set-up is instant, but your rewarded for keeping turrets alive as long as possible.

I'll compromise on the zero damage, Tinkers can have grenades too...

I just don't see much point to a new class unless it's truly different. Even if it's hard to balance and lots of people hate it. The alternative is another Demon Hunter; all visual flash but, outside of a Momentum build, mechanically uninteresting.

[Aerisot]

I wouldn't mind Tinkers, they just do not fit with the Shadowlands expansion...necromancers though..

[ping-pong]

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.

If you call people massively leaving the game "a benefit". Tech destroys the fantasy atmosphere. You can ignore and tolerate the one already in game, but a playable class would make it impossible to ignore.

[Gorsameth]

Yeah people 'hate' tinkers simply because people have kept proclaiming they need to be added for what may well be a decade soon.

Its simply a matter of fatigue.

And frankly the game has more then enough classes already. Please don't add more...

[Teriz]

But, as it has been pointed out numerous times to you, a playable tech class would not be Helix or Gelbin, just like player druids aren't Malfurion, player priests aren't Anduin, etc. They are notable, VIP NPCs, not bound by the rules and constraints imposed by the game upon player characters.

Not talking about the playable class. I’m talking about Goblin tech in general.

If you are going to take WC3:R as canon, then you have to take all of what is in the story campaigns as canon, and, as pointed out, there are many lore inconsistencies that you'll have to take as canon, and reconcile with current canon.

Except it IS canon.

[Triceron]

No point bringing a Necromancer class into WoW when you already have a Necromancer class in WoW.

Then where is the new class?

Absent due to a focus on more customization options for existing classes.

Which is pretty much in line with what Class skins would be, more customization options across the board.

- - - Updated - - -

Death knights are necromancers:

Death Knights were inspired and influenced by Necromancer and Runemaster design, but they aren't representing the Necromancer identity.

Don't be so ignorant, we have Necromancers in the game right now that aren't Death Knights

[Traveler Voltin]

Then where is the new class?

Absent due to a focus on more customization options for existing classes.

Which is pretty much in line with what Class skins would be, more customization options across the board.

- - - Updated - - -



Death Knights were inspired and influenced by Necromancer and Runemaster design, but they aren't representing the Necromancer identity.

Don't be so ignorant, we have Necromancers in the game right now that aren't Death Knights

class skins are a stupid idea.

[Triceron]

class skins are a stupid idea.

Which would be apt since Blizzard is known for stupid ideas.

They introduced a 2-spec 4th leather wearing 3-button EZ class that took gameplay away from Warlocks and Monks. I'm pretty sure you'd consider that a stupid idea too, and it made it into the game over your precious Tinker.

[Traveler Voltin]

Which would be apt since Blizzard is known for stupid ideas.

They introduced a 2-spec 4th leather wearing 3-button EZ class that took gameplay away from Warlocks and Monks. I'm pretty sure you'd consider that a stupid idea too, and it made it into the game over your precious Tinker.

warlock should have never had meta to begin with.
so they can suffer.

[Ielenia]

Not talking about the playable class. I’m talking about Goblin tech in general.

You specifically mentioned Helix and Gelbin. And as I pointed out, those are notable, VIP NPCs. You don't see priests wielding swords and wearing plate mail outside of Anduin. You don't see priests wielding bow or casting moon-based arcane magic.

Except it IS canon.

Fine. Then you hold even the lore inconsistencies as canon, I assume?

[Triceron]

warlock should have never had meta to begin with.
so they can suffer.

Another example of stupid ideas that made it into the game. Thank Xelnath for that one.

[ymirsson]

That would be the Death Knight class, since it can do anything a Necromancer can do. Conversely, the profession can NOT do anything a Tinker could do.

If a DK and an necromancer are similar enough to not implement the missing class, then tinker are just the same to engineers. No amount of childish denial can change that.
I dare say that in most sane minds tinkers and engineers are even more close then DKs and Necromancers. Not yours of course.