470 réponses à ce sujet

[Aermas]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Then what do you want, exactly?

You don't want anything to do with "dirty fighting", there's options that ignore them but you point at them and say "there's dirty fighting elsewhere in the class!".

I cannot ignore the highly restrictive field of skills that the specs cover, they are assassin/thief specs & no fighter types. & if I do not take a spec, then I have to put points into the normal rogue abilities that will ultimately leave me but no choice but to take "dirty fighting" abilities.

[Saibh]

I cannot for the life of me figure out the point of this thread.

What are you trying to accomplish Aermas? You don't like class distinction? Well, tough. They're distinct. I don't care which way of handling classes is superior in your eyes; classes are being done a certain way, and that's that.

Modifié par Saibh, 22 décembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Leonia]

Saibh wrote...

I cannot for the life of me figure out the point of this thread.

What are you trying to accomplish Aermas? You don't like class distinction? Well, tough. They're distinct. I don't care which way of handling classes is superior in your eyes; classes are being done a certain way, and that's that.

Same thing he always tries to accomplish.. trying to combine "realism" and "video games". It usually doesn't end well.

[andar91]

Aermas wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Then what do you want, exactly?

You don't want anything to do with "dirty fighting", there's options that ignore them but you point at them and say "there's dirty fighting elsewhere in the class!".

I cannot ignore the highly restrictive field of skills that the specs cover, they are assassin/thief specs & no fighter types. & if I do not take a spec, then I have to put points into the normal rogue abilities that will ultimately leave me but no choice but to take "dirty fighting" abilities.

But you have no idea what the rogue skill trees will consist of.  Is "Dirty Fighting" an ability?  Maybe.  But that's ONE ability out of four trees that aren't dedicated to a weapon style.

I'm sorry, but it seems like your real gripe is that the classes are clearly defined in their most iconic forms.  AKA-the strong and slow fighter, the quick and cunning rogue, and the intelligent mage.  Of course, you can find examples of other archetypes, but they're mostly off-shoots of the three already listed.  This is a class-based game and there will always be restrictions because of that.  You can probably build your character in lots of different ways, but at the end of the day, you still have to pick a class to play as.  You want mobility?  Play a rogue.  We know warriors have a charge ability, but rogues are the ones that focus on mobility and single-target DPS.

[Aermas]

andar91 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Then what do you want, exactly?

You don't want anything to do with "dirty fighting", there's options that ignore them but you point at them and say "there's dirty fighting elsewhere in the class!".

I cannot ignore the highly restrictive field of skills that the specs cover, they are assassin/thief specs & no fighter types. & if I do not take a spec, then I have to put points into the normal rogue abilities that will ultimately leave me but no choice but to take "dirty fighting" abilities.

But you have no idea what the rogue skill trees will consist of.  Is "Dirty Fighting" an ability?  Maybe.  But that's ONE ability out of four trees that aren't dedicated to a weapon style.

I'm sorry, but it seems like your real gripe is that the classes are clearly defined in their most iconic forms.  AKA-the strong and slow fighter, the quick and cunning rogue, and the intelligent mage.  Of course, you can find examples of other archetypes, but they're mostly off-shoots of the three already listed.  This is a class-based game and there will always be restrictions because of that.  You can probably build your character in lots of different ways, but at the end of the day, you still have to pick a class to play as.  You want mobility?  Play a rogue.  We know warriors have a charge ability, but rogues are the ones that focus on mobility and single-target DPS.

I quoted it so that one would not equate it to the skill of the same name. By "dirty fighting" I mean all underhanded & sneak forms of combat. I wanted people to discuss the warrior as a class, & what it means to be a warrior, & how a warrior can fight in different ways. As always I get a half dozen people saying "it's a game deal with it" instead of discussion.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

As always I get a half dozen people saying "it's a game deal with it" instead of discussion.

You want us to discuss a strictly gaming term, without mentioning that it is a game?

[Leonia]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

As always I get a half dozen people saying "it's a game deal with it" instead of discussion.

You want us to discuss a strictly gaming term, without mentioning that it is a game?

Hard to have a discussion when you don't want to hear others opinions or listen to anything contrary to what you feel is the "right way" to do it.

[Dave of Canada]

It's hard to discuss game mechanics and logic without mentioning "it's a game".

[Hathur]

As a former "warrior" (soldier)... my training was fundamentally identical to the training my fellow warriors did several thousand years ago.... That being, speed and endurance being the two most critical physical attributes.



Physical strength is not considered a critical component for a warrior (or soldier, in this case). A slow warrior who can't stay on the move constantly without tiring is a dead warrior... be he a sword wielding warrior of the Roman legion, or an assault-rifle equipped infantryman... speed and endurance trumps strength.



Warriors aren't trained to survive multiple stab wounds (or gun shots, in my case), we're taught to be fast and smart to avoid being stabbed (or shot) in the first place.

[andar91]

Aermas wrote...

andar91 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Then what do you want, exactly?

You don't want anything to do with "dirty fighting", there's options that ignore them but you point at them and say "there's dirty fighting elsewhere in the class!".

I cannot ignore the highly restrictive field of skills that the specs cover, they are assassin/thief specs & no fighter types. & if I do not take a spec, then I have to put points into the normal rogue abilities that will ultimately leave me but no choice but to take "dirty fighting" abilities.

But you have no idea what the rogue skill trees will consist of.  Is "Dirty Fighting" an ability?  Maybe.  But that's ONE ability out of four trees that aren't dedicated to a weapon style.

I'm sorry, but it seems like your real gripe is that the classes are clearly defined in their most iconic forms.  AKA-the strong and slow fighter, the quick and cunning rogue, and the intelligent mage.  Of course, you can find examples of other archetypes, but they're mostly off-shoots of the three already listed.  This is a class-based game and there will always be restrictions because of that.  You can probably build your character in lots of different ways, but at the end of the day, you still have to pick a class to play as.  You want mobility?  Play a rogue.  We know warriors have a charge ability, but rogues are the ones that focus on mobility and single-target DPS.

I quoted it so that one would not equate it to the skill of the same name. By "dirty fighting" I mean all underhanded & sneak forms of combat. I wanted people to discuss the warrior as a class, & what it means to be a warrior, & how a warrior can fight in different ways. As always I get a half dozen people saying "it's a game deal with it" instead of discussion.

Well, I think a warrior, in reality and lore, is simply anyone who fights a combatant.  This can include stealth, berserker warriors, someone who uses magic even.  In game terms, I consider warriors to be characters that wear medium to heavy armor and wield larger weapons (although there's some flexibility in that).  

Speaking about rogues again, we know that two of their talent webs will be dual wielding and archery.  Another will probably be some kind of "dirty fighting" web (and I apologize for misinterpreting your meaning in your other post).  That leaves three more, not counting specializations.  One of those might be device based with things like miasmic flasks, but another might be all mobility, and another dealing with combat abilities like kicking an enemy down or something.  So there may still be room for those sorts of things.

As for warriors, they will also have four trees unrelated to weapon talents, and they could be anything.  We just don't know yet, so maybe you'll be able to build a warrior the way you want.

[Ziggeh]

leonia42 wrote...

Hard to have a discussion when you don't want to hear others opinions or listen to anything contrary to what you feel is the "right way" to do it.

I have to ignore what you said and repeat my original statement now.

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

As always I get a half dozen people saying "it's a game deal with it" instead of discussion.

You want us to discuss a strictly gaming term, without mentioning that it is a game?

Hard to have a discussion when you don't want to hear others opinions or listen to anything contrary to what you feel is the "right way" to do it.

I just refuse to accept the "get over it" arguments (if you could call them that)
Now if someone could come up with an excuse to have ridged unimaginative classes, without using the "get over it" argument I wouldn't mind.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Now if someone could come up with an excuse to have ridged unimaginative classes, without using the "get over it" argument I wouldn't mind.

We discussed that before. It's the attempt to instill the sense of party synergy by having each member carry a defined weakness made up by anothers strengths.

[Dave of Canada]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

We discussed that before. It's the attempt to instill the sense of party synergy by having each member carry a defined weakness made up by anothers strengths.

In other words, "it's a game".

[Leonia]

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Modifié par leonia42, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:14 .

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Not really, not when there are only three. If they had about six or seven, I wouldn't be complaining.

What is more ridged or unimaginative than Warrior Thief & Wizard?

Modifié par Aermas, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Leonia]

The holy trinity is still there.. tank, dps, healer/nuker. Why create a million classes with heaps of diluted spells/skills when you could refine it into 3 with each being completely unique and full of meaningful skills/spells?

I know, as someone who went through the SWG NGE I should be the last person advocating the concept of "reduce 36 classes down to 8" but.. it makes sense in a single-player game. If Bioware had infinite resources/time/energy they could make more unique classes, sure, but I am fairly sure they like the "less is more" approach so they can spend those resources elsewhere.

Modifié par leonia42, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Not really, not when there are only three. If they had about six or seven, I wouldn't be complaining.

What is more ridged or unimaginative than Warrior Thief & Wizard?

More classes adds more unnecessary overlap. That or uselessness.

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

The holy trinity is still there.. tank, dps, healer/nuker. Why create a million classes with heaps of diluted spells/skills when you could refine it into 3 with each being completely unique and full of meaningful skills/spells?

I know, as someone who went through the SWG NGE I should be the last person advocating the concept of "reduce 36 classes down to 8" but.. it makes sense in a single-player game. If Bioware had infinite resources/time/energy they could make more unique classes, sure, but I am fairly sure they like the "less is more" approach so they can spend those resources elsewhere.

I am fully & unwaveringly against the Unholy Trinity, it is flawed & outdated, & far far too ridged. I can understand the limited resources, but they could have chosen to expand rather than contract.

[Aermas]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Not really, not when there are only three. If they had about six or seven, I wouldn't be complaining.

What is more ridged or unimaginative than Warrior Thief & Wizard?

More classes adds more unnecessary overlap. That or uselessness.

Then what class pray tell would a Strong Mobile Sword & Board fighter fulfill?

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

it is flawed & outdated

But has very few, if any reasonably competing dynamics.

[Bryy_Miller]

Aermas wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Not really, not when there are only three. If they had about six or seven, I wouldn't be complaining.

What is more ridged or unimaginative than Warrior Thief & Wizard?

More classes adds more unnecessary overlap. That or uselessness.

Then what class pray tell would a Strong Mobile Sword & Board fighter fulfill?

Put a lot of skill points into Dexterity. There. Your warrior is now fast.

[Leonia]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

it is flawed & outdated

But has very few, if any reasonably competing dynamics.

*looks at all the RPGs she owns*

*tries to pick out one that doesn't have a holy trinity concept*

*is stuck holding the rubbish that is Darkfall Online*

[Aermas]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Not really, not when there are only three. If they had about six or seven, I wouldn't be complaining.

What is more ridged or unimaginative than Warrior Thief & Wizard?

More classes adds more unnecessary overlap. That or uselessness.

Then what class pray tell would a Strong Mobile Sword & Board fighter fulfill?

Put a lot of skill points into Dexterity. There. Your warrior is now fast.

I said Mobile, not fast.