Why so much hate for Tinkerer?

[TheRevenantHero]

So do you. WoW isnot a high fantasy. How can you say that game with that, that, and that is high fantasy of some sort? WoW went too far away for this definition.
Tinkers and use some magic-powered items, but core of goblin and gnomes tech - isn't magetech. Its mechanical stuff. Draenei, Nborne, BE and Dark Iron golems are indeed magitech. These pets and creatures are not using arcane, fel, elemental or any other magic to "live".

And if you want magitech class - its just your opinion. And to think that if your idea of tinkers is a right one and others wrong - its to egoistic, dont you think?

LMFAO I can't take you seriously at all now. You just called WoW not high fantasy. There are no words for how ridiculous that statement is. I'm gonna go ahead and disregard your posts like I have with Teriz.

- - - Updated - - -

WoW is not high fantasy. At least not pure one since tech has been there since forever.

Tech does not immediately make it not high fantasy. It's like saying the campaign setting Eberron is not high fantasy because they use magitech. Just stop.

[Alteiry]

The fact that you people think WoW isn't high fantasy just because it has technology just goes to show none of you have studied literary sciences.

High Fantasy is defined by its themes and plot structure, not by individual tropes. The reason why you people think High Fantasy = "medieval-level technology + magic" is because that's what LotR was, which is and remains the most well-known example of High Fantasy. But LotR isn't High fantasy because it had a medieval setting with magic, it was High Fantasy because it was an epic story set in a novel fictional universe that explored high-ideal themes like good vs evil.

Just to drive this point home, Star Wars is a classic example of High Fantasy.

[Dancaris]

LMFAO I can't take you seriously at all now. You just called WoW not high fantasy. There are no words for how ridiculous that statement is. I'm gonna go ahead and disregard your posts like I have with Teriz.

- - - Updated - - -



Tech does not immediately make it not high fantasy. It's like saying the campaign setting Eberron is not high fantasy because they use magitech. Just stop.

Ha, classic. If you cant answer - put blame on person and not on topic. And again, its not topic of this thread. Some people hate tinkers becouse beleive that in their headcanon wow universe there are no place for technology or want their class ideas, and not others. Necromancers, Dragonsworn, dark rangers and other. And if you dare to tell them that Death Knights are necromancers in wow - they are yelling at you: "THEY ARE DIFFERENT!!!!" and tinkers and engineers are the same. Double standarts, if you ask me.

[TheRevenantHero]

Ha, classic. If you cant answer - put blame on person and not on topic. And again, its not topic of this thread. Some people hate tinkers becouse beleive that in their headcanon wow universe there are no place for technology

I hate Tinkers because their fans are utterly unbearable as evidenced by this thread.

[Trazzle]

I hate Tinkers because their fans are utterly unbearable as evidenced by this thread.

Please, no worse than the constant hecklers. It's a fun theme, fits in the lore, fills an unused niche, and has popular interest. People obviously have various opinions on the matter, but those are the facts. Deal with it.

[Arainie]

Because I genuinely don't like steampunk, that's all there is to it.

[TheRevenantHero]

Please, no worse than the constant hecklers. It's a fun theme, fits in the lore, fills an unused niche, and has popular interest. People obviously have various opinions on the matter, but those are the facts. Deal with it.

Except it doesn't fill an unused niche if you go the goblin/gnome only route. We have engineering already. And all your last sentence did was 100% prove my point.

[Trazzle]

Except it doesn't fill an unused niche if you go the goblin/gnome only route. We have engineering already. And all your last sentence did was 100% prove my point.

If the theme went the 'goblin/gnome only route' it could simply better realize the already established engineering themes while filling in the rotational/mechanical gaps with modern gaming tropes. That's not to say that they couldn't allow other races, plenty of races have an already established relationship with tech in one form or another. If they chose to go that route they'd also have more creative license to add a broader range of tech themes to the class fantasy. Also, nothing in WoW suggests they couldn't reside within the same narrative space.

[Kagthul]

Because engineering already exists.

[Scrysis]

Tinker fans: "Engineering is not a class, thus has nothing to do with class balancing"

Tinker fans: "Despite mechanical similarities to the Druid class, the mech theme offers possibilities of new gameplay mechanics that animal forms can't offer, like "park", "self destruct", "magnetize", etc. "

Tinker fans: "You mean like pretty much every pet class (Inner Demons anyone)? Also no one is talking about a second health bar."

Tinker fans: "Except it wouldn't cut features. Every new class gets exclusive art assets. Further, a Tinker with unique mechs and bots is no different than unique Druid forms and each Shaman race getting its own unique set of totems."

Tinker fans: "Undermine."


Hope that helps.

First off, I'm familiar with the Undermine Journal, which is a Wow auction database website, but I wasn't familiar with what Undermine itself was. I actually had to go look it up. I love how you spout a one-word non-sequitur to an issue that I mentioned (and was ignored!). There are no expansions currently that have extensive themes that would lend themselves to introducing tinkers, which is what I mentioned, that would be explored by the playerbase at large. Undermine is apparently some sort of goblin location, which, unless we're talking about an alternate universe, wasn't made into an expansion theme. Don't know how that would work for you, since, once again, not a theme of an expansion. If the next expac is all about rampaging robots, I could see Tinker coming to the forefront.

Second, thanks for 100% proving my point. You guys are literally beating the concept to death. . .non-stop. We have at least 2.5 years before the next expansion. Can't you guys wait like a year and a half before you start spouting more threads?

Third, I'll address your comments because it's satisfying on a certain level:

1) Engineering has trinkets and items that have on-use effects that mimic class abilities, which is VERY, VERY different than other professions which all give passive bonuses, such as tailoring creating a chestpiece with stats on the gear, or flasks which are available to everyone. You have things like bombs which deal damage, can stun, totems that rez people, items which can be used to rez people, items which do regular CC, etc. Classes use abilities. Thus, we're talking about ABILITY balancing, which is something shared between classes and engineering since they are both pro-active things that the player uses, and not passive bonuses.

2) I've seen all kinds of suggestions from proponents of the Tinker class, but there are a few trends. From what I've read, there are largely two camps of thought -- fans who want mech suits, and fans who want turrets and things. Now, I know that the designers at Blizzard could probably be really creative and do something innovative, but so far, the fans have rehashed a lot of stuff that looks a lot like what we already have.

3) You're kind of well. . . wrong. I've read at least one mention of a second health bar on a mech suit. Also, a mechanic you just proposed (telling a mech suit to park and self-destruct would pose for some balance and gameplay issues for when the Tinker didn't have the suit after blowing it up -- as an example).

4) You're kind of wrong here, at least with the propositions I've seen in this thread. If you don't share them, I apologize. Shaman and Druids were developed over a long period of time. Vanilla Wow was developed over a period of FIVE years with an enormous team dedicated to just vanilla wow since they didn't have any live updates at the time. Druids During this time period were limited to night elves and tauren -- the total number of new models during this time period was actually really small. You had four distinct models (cat, bear), two shared travel forms, and one slightly altered and palette-swapped model (moonkin). That isn't nearly as much work. Each race of shaman had a distinct totem, but that is even less work. One model that had four slightly different palettes. When druid form was revamped, it was a big deal. Just remember, both of those classes were changed and improved over a long period of time.

Now I've seen people propose four races for Tinker -- gnome, goblin, Draenai, vulpera. Mech suits would have to use new rigging for animations, which is a big deal. At least druid forms use the same animation sets as actual creatures in the game. Then you'd need a different model for each race, and then models and animations for each set of turrets/gizmos/whatever. I'm not saying it isn't impossible, only that when compared with other options, it would be expensive on the resources. Look at the three expansion classes we have now -- Death knights literally use the same undead art assets that are already in the game for their pets, they're shared across races, and they have the same set of moves that don't involve adding new models. Monks are literally the same thing. Even their pets are actually just scaled down npcs that we interact with in Mists. Demonhunters are more expensive in that they involve a two new models and some additional minor customizations like glowing blindfolds and tatoos. That class is limited to two very similar races only, so that the animations can be shared. The models for both demon forms and the wings are also shared.

[Dancaris]

First off, I'm familiar with the Undermine Journal, which is a Wow auction database website, but I wasn't familiar with what Undermine itself was. I actually had to go look it up. I love how you spout a one-word non-sequitur to an issue that I mentioned (and was ignored!). There are no expansions currently that have extensive themes that would lend themselves to introducing tinkers, which is what I mentioned, that would be explored by the playerbase at large. Undermine is apparently some sort of goblin location, which, unless we're talking about an alternate universe, wasn't made into an expansion theme. Don't know how that would work for you, since, once again, not a theme of an expansion. If the next expac is all about rampaging robots, I could see Tinker coming to the forefront.

Second, thanks for 100% proving my point. You guys are literally beating the concept to death. . .non-stop. We have at least 2.5 years before the next expansion. Can't you guys wait like a year and a half before you start spouting more threads?

Third, I'll address your comments because it's satisfying on a certain level:

1) Engineering has trinkets and items that have on-use effects that mimic class abilities, which is VERY, VERY different than other professions which all give passive bonuses, such as tailoring creating a chestpiece with stats on the gear, or flasks which are available to everyone. You have things like bombs which deal damage, can stun, totems that rez people, items which can be used to rez people, items which do regular CC, etc. Classes use abilities. Thus, we're talking about ABILITY balancing, which is something shared between classes and engineering since they are both pro-active things that the player uses, and not passive bonuses.

2) I've seen all kinds of suggestions from proponents of the Tinker class, but there are a few trends. From what I've read, there are largely two camps of thought -- fans who want mech suits, and fans who want turrets and things. Now, I know that the designers at Blizzard could probably be really creative and do something innovative, but so far, the fans have rehashed a lot of stuff that looks a lot like what we already have.

3) You're kind of well. . . wrong. I've read at least one mention of a second health bar on a mech suit. Also, a mechanic you just proposed (telling a mech suit to park and self-destruct would pose for some balance and gameplay issues for when the Tinker didn't have the suit after blowing it up -- as an example).

4) You're kind of wrong here, at least with the propositions I've seen in this thread. If you don't share them, I apologize. Shaman and Druids were developed over a long period of time. Vanilla Wow was developed over a period of FIVE years with an enormous team dedicated to just vanilla wow since they didn't have any live updates at the time. Druids During this time period were limited to night elves and tauren -- the total number of new models during this time period was actually really small. You had four distinct models (cat, bear), two shared travel forms, and one slightly altered and palette-swapped model (moonkin). That isn't nearly as much work. Each race of shaman had a distinct totem, but that is even less work. One model that had four slightly different palettes. When druid form was revamped, it was a big deal. Just remember, both of those classes were changed and improved over a long period of time.

Now I've seen people propose four races for Tinker -- gnome, goblin, Draenai, vulpera. Mech suits would have to use new rigging for animations, which is a big deal. At least druid forms use the same animation sets as actual creatures in the game. Then you'd need a different model for each race, and then models and animations for each set of turrets/gizmos/whatever. I'm not saying it isn't impossible, only that when compared with other options, it would be expensive on the resources. Look at the three expansion classes we have now -- Death knights literally use the same undead art assets that are already in the game for their pets, they're shared across races, and they have the same set of moves that don't involve adding new models. Monks are literally the same thing. Even their pets are actually just scaled down npcs that we interact with in Mists. Demonhunters are more expensive in that they involve a two new models and some additional minor customizations like glowing blindfolds and tatoos. That class is limited to two very similar races only, so that the animations can be shared. The models for both demon forms and the wings are also shared.

And your point is that creating 2 models with different tints with small differences as color of crystals or paints on cabin is too much work?
Could it work if there will be class skins for druid (mech suit one) and for shaman (turret one)? Yes, it could work. But you as tinker class skin is still a druid/shaman. U dont belong to class halls, class fantasy of that classes. Not listening elements and spirits, not loving nature and cycle of live/death, not ardenweald. They are just tinkers, that crazy bastards that wear a goggles, use gismos and loving to explosions (goblin ones). Could it work with that mechamage concept? Yes, its could work. But there will be not goblin, dwarfs and gnomes tinkers, elf/draenei one.

[Scrysis]

And your point is that creating 2 models with different tints with small differences as color of crystals or paints on cabin is too much work?
Could it work if there will be class skins for druid (mech suit one) and for shaman (turret one)? Yes, it could work. But you as tinker class skin is still a druid/shaman. U dont belong to class halls, class fantasy of that classes. Not listening elements and spirits, not loving nature and cycle of live/death, not ardenweald. They are just tinkers, that crazy bastards that wear a goggles, use gismos and loving to explosions (goblin ones). Could it work with that mechamage concept? Yes, its could work. But there will be not goblin, dwarfs and gnomes tinkers, elf/draenei one.

I'm going to be honest. Your stream-of-consciousness reply is very fragmented and confusing to me, so I'll try to address what I can understand.

It isn't *just* the models and textures. You have to create an entire rigging to go with the model, and then create animations to go with it. If you look at a lot of the characters and animated entities in wow, there is a LOT of reuse of rigs and animations to save on time. For example, you might have noticed that worgen females and draenai females share the same general body shape and animations. That's to save on resources.

Can Blizzard devote resources to it? Yes, they could. But it's intensive enough that it might cost a dungeon, or a large raid wing.

[Enter Name Here]

if i got 1 penny for every tinker thread i'd have enough money to commission a AAA tinker game to silence the tinker fans for all eternity

[Teriz]

But still they can be the "silent majority". The "silent majority" are not only those who vote but don't post. The "silent majority" are also those who don't post AND don't vote.

Not what I'm disagreeing with. I'm disagreeing with your notion that people are avoiding "Tinker threads". They're actually avoiding a class thread.

Except it does, perfectly, because the tinker beats the necromancer by a very small margin. I detailed that in an other post of mine:

I'm sorry, but any way you slice it, putting all the polls you originally posted in chronological order shows an undeniable decline in popularity.

If you wish to claim that it's losing popularity, knock yourself out. The point is that the Tinker has won every class poll on this forum in recent memory.

There's also this poll;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ed-to-the-game

Which also has the Tinker beating out other class concepts. The Necromancer isn't on there, but I doubt it would have changed anything.

I'd be very careful with your words if I were you, considering in the last poll you posted above, the tinker only marginally beat the other class ideas.

Only if you're purposely ignoring the facts. The facts are that the Tinker is consistently beating other class concepts. I think you'd be better served finding a poll where the Tinker loses to another class concept.

Good luck with that.

[Henako]

Tinker is a terrible name. You tinker with a watch you're trying to get ticking again. You engineer a fucking mech suit that has machine-gun knees and a rocket pelvis.

And for what it's worth, Teriz is insufferable. Half this guys arguments are just made up, "Blizzard would never do this because -arbitrary bullshit I just decided-. It has to be this, because -more arbitrary, unsupportable opinion."

You can't just say things. Just saying things doesn't make a good argument.

[Teriz]

First off, I'm familiar with the Undermine Journal, which is a Wow auction database website, but I wasn't familiar with what Undermine itself was. I actually had to go look it up. I love how you spout a one-word non-sequitur to an issue that I mentioned (and was ignored!). There are no expansions currently that have extensive themes that would lend themselves to introducing tinkers, which is what I mentioned, that would be explored by the playerbase at large. Undermine is apparently some sort of goblin location, which, unless we're talking about an alternate universe, wasn't made into an expansion theme. Don't know how that would work for you, since, once again, not a theme of an expansion. If the next expac is all about rampaging robots, I could see Tinker coming to the forefront.

Uh, Undermine is lore. It's discussed in WoW. It was in an Alpha version of WoW. It was a planned continent in WoW. I'm not sure why you're saying its part of some alternate universe. According to the history of the game, it's a very real aspect of the game world, and there's no reason to believe that it won't be part of the game at some point in the near future.

Second, thanks for 100% proving my point. You guys are literally beating the concept to death. . .non-stop. We have at least 2.5 years before the next expansion. Can't you guys wait like a year and a half before you start spouting more threads?

Why do you care that people are discussing a Warcraft topic on a Warcraft forum? There is ONE active Tinker thread on this forum. If you don't want to discuss the class, don't participate in this ONE thread. Simple.

Third, I'll address your comments because it's satisfying on a certain level:

1) Engineering has trinkets and items that have on-use effects that mimic class abilities, which is VERY, VERY different than other professions which all give passive bonuses, such as tailoring creating a chestpiece with stats on the gear, or flasks which are available to everyone. You have things like bombs which deal damage, can stun, totems that rez people, items which can be used to rez people, items which do regular CC, etc. Classes use abilities. Thus, we're talking about ABILITY balancing, which is something shared between classes and engineering since they are both pro-active things that the player uses, and not passive bonuses.

Except an engineering item isn't an ability, it's an item. So no, it isn't part of ability balancing. Throughout WoW there are items that you can pick up that also cause damage, res people, or do other things, but like engineering items, they're also not part of ability balancing. Right off the bat, Engineering items don't scale with you class level. They aren't effected by passives and talents. They have limited use, low damage output, and extremely long cool downs.

I will grant you that engineering is a unique profession, and I'll grant you that it provides you with a few utility items that mimic class abilities, but that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with class balancing.

2) I've seen all kinds of suggestions from proponents of the Tinker class, but there are a few trends. From what I've read, there are largely two camps of thought -- fans who want mech suits, and fans who want turrets and things. Now, I know that the designers at Blizzard could probably be really creative and do something innovative, but so far, the fans have rehashed a lot of stuff that looks a lot like what we already have.

Fans want both mech suits and turrets, since both come from the HotS and WC3 Tinker hero. If you want to see some innovative abilities, start there, because those abilities are more than likely the foundation of a class.

And yes, the abilities are quite innovative.

3) You're kind of well. . . wrong. I've read at least one mention of a second health bar on a mech suit. Also, a mechanic you just proposed (telling a mech suit to park and self-destruct would pose for some balance and gameplay issues for when the Tinker didn't have the suit after blowing it up -- as an example).

Feel free to link me to the second health bar mech suit discussion. If its what I think it is, it's just people (including myself) debating a potential idea of making it possible, and in the end deciding that it wouldn't work.

Also the concept of "park" is non-combat, so no balancing issue there. Self Destruct would simply be a Tinker ejecting from their mech and blowing it up, forcing them to fight in "pilot mode" for a set amount of time before being able to summon the mech again. I'm not seeing how that would be a balance issue. It would simply be an AoE damage cool down.

4) You're kind of wrong here, at least with the propositions I've seen in this thread. If you don't share them, I apologize. Shaman and Druids were developed over a long period of time. Vanilla Wow was developed over a period of FIVE years with an enormous team dedicated to just vanilla wow since they didn't have any live updates at the time. Druids During this time period were limited to night elves and tauren -- the total number of new models during this time period was actually really small. You had four distinct models (cat, bear), two shared travel forms, and one slightly altered and palette-swapped model (moonkin). That isn't nearly as much work. Each race of shaman had a distinct totem, but that is even less work. One model that had four slightly different palettes. When druid form was revamped, it was a big deal. Just remember, both of those classes were changed and improved over a long period of time.

Now I've seen people propose four races for Tinker -- gnome, goblin, Draenai, vulpera. Mech suits would have to use new rigging for animations, which is a big deal. At least druid forms use the same animation sets as actual creatures in the game. Then you'd need a different model for each race, and then models and animations for each set of turrets/gizmos/whatever. I'm not saying it isn't impossible, only that when compared with other options, it would be expensive on the resources. Look at the three expansion classes we have now -- Death knights literally use the same undead art assets that are already in the game for their pets, they're shared across races, and they have the same set of moves that don't involve adding new models. Monks are literally the same thing. Even their pets are actually just scaled down npcs that we interact with in Mists. Demonhunters are more expensive in that they involve a two new models and some additional minor customizations like glowing blindfolds and tatoos. That class is limited to two very similar races only, so that the animations can be shared. The models for both demon forms and the wings are also shared.

Death Knights received multiple undead models per race, it's own set of armor, it's own profession, unique weaponry, and it's own unique mount.
Monks received unique "martial arts" animations for each race, it's own set of armor, its own set of weapons, an entire monastery in the mountains of Pandaria.
Demon Hunters got their own unique Night elf and BE models. Got unique demon forms for both females and males and for BE and NE, and their own weapon class.

In short, each new class gets it's own set of art assets. Consider that the mech could just use an existing model's skeleton;





There's already existing robot models, and turret models. All they would require is a reskin. The animations are already in place. All that would leave is the standard new animations, weapons, and assets that ALL new classes receive.

So how much work would it really require?

- - - Updated - - -

Tinker is a terrible name. You tinker with a watch you're trying to get ticking again. You engineer a fucking mech suit that has machine-gun knees and a rocket pelvis.

And for what it's worth, Teriz is insufferable. Half this guys arguments are just made up, "Blizzard would never do this because -arbitrary bullshit I just decided-. It has to be this, because -more arbitrary, unsupportable opinion."

You can't just say things. Just saying things doesn't make a good argument.

An actual example of me saying "Blizzard would never do this because..." would be nice.

[Aucald]

Again, this thread has jumped track into an argument about whether or not Tinkers could be implemented - let's attempt to return to the actual subject of the thread one more time and drop the rolling back and forth.

[Dancaris]

Again, this thread has jumped track into an argument about whether or not Tinkers could be implemented - let's attempt to return to the actual subject of the thread one more time and drop the rolling back and forth.

I wish you can rename this thread to some Tinker-megathread or smth.
People hate Tinkers because they think that their class idea is superior.

[Teriz]

I wish you can rename this thread to some Tinker-megathread or smth.
People hate Tinkers because they think that their class idea is superior.

That, and they hate Gnomes and Goblins, and their technology.

Despite that, based on polling the Tinker is the most popular class concept on this forum. So take that as you like.

[Enter Name Here]

didn't bother to read any thread about the topic but some questions emerge - mostly cosmetic stuff

are they supposed to be in the mech all the time?

if yes:
you realize they would have to be quite tiny in order to fit through all the doors?
will they be able to use mounts at all? - a mech riding a horse seems both silly and redundant to me
how will armor pieces be displayed? just on the pilot? - given how tiny the pilot would have to be, there will be little to now room for "fashioncraft"

if no:
will the mech be more like a worgen-esque combat form?
or like a CD like DH Metamorphosis?

personally, I would be preferring it to be like the worgen-form.

I don't see blizz using resources on some unique equipment for the mech or other UI stuff like skilltrees etc.
those things would grant an expansion style feature for everyone like legion artifacts.

so, mechs would just end up as a customisation option at character-creation/barber shop

that said, even if you guys are annoying as hell with all these threads, I don't see a big problem with tinkers being a thing

On topic:
I don't dislike the idea of the tinker itself. I dislike the flood of threads emerging about it.