For full classes, this game will feel incomplete to me without Artificer being an option.
"But it's not set in Eberron."
So? That doesn't matter. Just because there's not already a place full of people doing what artificer's do as a commonplace thing doesn't mean there can't be some people out there trying to do such things.
The only distinction would be that it doesn't look as advanced as you'd expect of an Eberron setting. Heck, you could even justify random enemy goblin artificer's where there creations would be jurry-rigged out of scrap.
The very class page for Artificers already states they're found throughought the entire DnD multiverse, not just the Eberron setting, which can easily include this game.
Honestly I don't rightly get where's there's so many people out there who think Artificer = Eberron only, thus causing me to add these extra sentences.
But maybe the people causing that aren't in the BG community anyway, idk..
...maybe I'm alone, but outside the alchemist, I really don't like the artificer.
Any particular reason, like is it Balance or theming? Cause if former I got nothing to help on that, 5e balance is probably going to continue as it always has. If it is the latter, they are very very easy to retheme by nature even without the tasha's thing, cause Eldritch Cannons can just be wands so you are a wandmaker, and Battlesmith can just be a golemancer so their Steel Defender is less mechanical and more lumpy stone and metal. The armorer is arguably the hardist but it can pulled back in description to just runic enchantments and not the weird suits they describe now.
Regardless, not liking it is valid, even if it is just "Don't like it cause don't like it", though I tend to agree with Old Soul that it is a bit incomplete without it cause I want Artificer to be a mainstay.
(Then again, I am one of those that want Bloodhunter to finally be considered official at some point so we can have that weird not natural fighter but somewhat magical class niche filled.)