Curse

prodigy ming · Jul 20, 2006, 01:19 AM // 01:19

This is not a personal attack, just several points you made that I find are a little off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Samurai are different, back in the early days of the Samurai, combat focused on the skill of individual fighters rather than the power of mass forces, Samurai were much more dedicated and trained than warriors of other nations, and their weapons were made with superior craftsmanship compared to weapons from elsewhere.

Isn't it a little bit of an overstatement to just simply say samruai train harder and more dedicated than other warriors? No living person now has seen how well a traditonal samruai fights. All these accounts are from the past which means... people can pretty much say whatever they want.
Can Kung Fu really damage the interal organs with a point of a finger? maybe... though i doubt it. Do Japanese samurai really train harder and can pwn warrior from every other culture? maybe... but I highly doubt that either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

It is more than obvious that higher martial arts come from the far east rather than any other culture, not just steriotypically, orientals have halmarked the martial arts into legendary capabilities with their superiority and lethality, and continued developement, despite the advances of modern combat which make them obsolete. Likewise, an Oriental Warrior, Samurai, is simply better than a normal footsoldier or even knight from other cultures, oriental fighters wrap the purpose of their exsistance into becoming unparrallelled combatants.

Again, you are just saying samurai can beat everyone else on earth without any prove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Nightfall is an Eloian chapter, even though the Eloians where last reported destroyed in their search for the the gods favor, taking an already mentioned culture from the first game (which was last reported to be wiped out) and making another african environment to go along with kryta as a chapter is reusing a previously established culture, isn't it? And I would hope that all european and caucasian cultures are not excluded because of their primary role in the first chapter either.

The difference is that the Eloians were only breifly mentioned and did not have a whole expansion dedicated to them like factions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

I don't think there should be another chapter specifically around another oriental culture, but japan is still very different then other oriental cultures, perhaps the most original, and a samurai concept is not completely limited to the scope of oriental settings, they can make an interesting samurai class in a new type of culture for more original creation.

I simply have to laugh at this statment... that Japan is the most original culture around. Not to offend the Japanese, though it shouldn't since most Japanese probably know these arleady... but a very big chunk of their culture is directly "borrowed" from Chinese. The technique to make katana (folding, inserting alloys, differential hardening of the edge) orginated from Chinese smits sometime along the 6th century BC. Japanese kimono is inspired by Chinese Hanfu, the traditional clothing of the Han people before it was replaced by the manchu Qipao that is currently being associated with China. Kanji (meaning words of Han) in the Japanese language is taken from Chinese words. Even karate is of Chinese origin. It was originally called "Tang hand" where Tang was a dynasty in China. Other countless exmaples include ancient Japanese government system, arts, and architecture that was heavily influenced by either China or Korea.
The sources for these are everywhere. Wikipedia has alot of information on these as well as just about any website you can find online.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Of all the rediculous class ideas and icons, acting like there is something wrong with perhaps the most universally admired and appreciated class type is pretty weak. And since anime is probably the most simular content to video games, and Samurai are the most popular icon which could be used in this game, I think it is rather safe to say it would be enjoyed and appreciated.

There seems to be a universal flaw in your argument that you like to generalized alot. For example, I doubt people from China, Korea, and other South Asians admire samurai alot after the invasion in WWII. You prespective seems to come primarly from a Western point of view. The rest of the world plays this game too...

Rikimaru · Jul 20, 2006, 02:21 AM // 02:21

I'm not sure how much anyone actually cares, but I'm pretty sure "oriental" refers to asian objects. You might offend a lot of people by calling Asians Orientals.

It's my oppinion that they shouldn't really add more sword classes to the game unless they use two-handed or very light ones, like cutlasses. Especially since we already have katanas.

-Edit- Nervermind, I just looked it up. The only reason some people think of that term as offensive is that it's like a eurpean title for asians or something like that. Or that it generalizes their location... either way it doesn't seem like much of a reason to be offended by it.

draxynnic · Jul 20, 2006, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Samurai are different, back in the early days of the Samurai, combat focused on the skill of individual fighters rather than the power of mass forces,

Ever read ancient Greek histories? Until quite recently, whenever you had nobles or champions on the battlefield, you had duels between champions on opposite sides which, in the legends, often came to be seen as more important than the clash of armies - occasionally even being the determining factor of the battle, whether by agreement (the winner of the duel is the victor, in order to minimise the destruction caused by the conflict) or by the effect on morale by one champion defeating the other. It's hardly unique to the Japanese.

Quote:

Samurai were much more dedicated and trained than warriors of other nations, and their weapons were made with superior craftsmanship compared to weapons from elsewhere.

Just plain wrong. The main reason we have this image is that samurai traditions are better preserved than those of other areas of the world. European knights, for instance, had their own forms of martial arts, both armed and unarmed, which historical studies have indicated to be a match for samurai techniques - different fighting styles, yes, but not to the point where one is inherently superior. Where this impression comes from is the modern media, which presents knights as clumsy and samurai as graceful. This image is wrong.

As for the 'superior' craftsmanship of the katana: The katana was, indeed, an impressively made weapon, but it isn't as good as the mysticism around it would suggest - it is certainly not superior in every way to a European blade of the equivalent time period. If you're a samurai fighting another samurai, then yes, the katana is probably a better weapon, but take a katana up against a European knight and expect those graceful cuts to do much against a good suit of plate, and you'll probably be sorely disappointed, however sharp the blade.

Similar comparisons can probably be made with other feudal cultures around the 15th century, I expect.

Quote:

The samurai highest code of honor and dedication make them original from other cultural fighters. Their katana is critical to their identity because it was not originally their weapon of combat, it was believed to harbor their soul, and was worn as a symbol, not a tool for combat.

So what is the European code of chivalry? No, not every knight reached the ideal, but most samurai weren't exactly perfect examples of their code of honour either. What of the European system of heraldry, critically important to a knight's identity? Okay, we don't have any records of knights believing their soul was in their armour, but knighthood certainly had it's own religious overtones.

Quote:

It is more than obvious that higher martial arts come from the far east rather than any other culture, not just steriotypically, orientals have halmarked the martial arts into legendary capabilities with their superiority and lethality, and continued developement, despite the advances of modern combat which make them obsolete.

The key phrase is the one I've bolded above - Oriental martial arts had mostly been kept, while those in much of the rest of the world had mostly been lost and, in some cases, even now being put back together. At the equivalent time period, martial arts were at similar levels of development in the rest of the world.

Quote:

Likewise, an Oriental Warrior, Samurai, is simply better than a normal footsoldier or even knight from other cultures, oriental fighters wrap the purpose of their existance into becoming unparrallelled combatants.

Do you think knights didn't? You think any member of a social class who's main purpose in their society was fighting didn't do their utmost to make themselves the best warriors they possibly could? What do you think was the whole point of holding tournaments?

Superior to common footsoldiers, yes, because those common footsoldiers, when not on the battlefield, are usually tending their farms and so on, but anyone who's being saved from having to perform those tasks so they can fight is going to do their utmost to make sure they're the best warriors they possibly can be. After all, their lives may well depend on it. Heck, for one example of a culture really taking this to extremes, go look up the Spartans.

Quote:

The extremity of influence and interest Samurai and other oriental classes have make them almost neccessary additions to most games of this type. They are archtypes which will pull in countless players. Whether or not Samurai is a good enough class type to be considered isn't even a question, it is popular whether you like it or not, wildly popular, perhaps the most popular melee combat icon period. Why have a Samurai?, because people want it, alot of people want it.

People want a lot of things. A lot of people want the level cap to be raised, for instance. Would that be a good thing for the game as a whole? Well, there have been good arguments presented as to why it wouldn't. (Is there really any difference between facing level 28 enemies at level 20 and facing level 38 enemies at level 30?)

I think whether a samurai is a good profession type to be considered is in question, and, in fact, a question which, in the means I judge new professions, is not looking favourable to the samurai. Tell me, how exactly does the samurai fill a role that the Warrior doesn't? I'm not even really interested in your arguments that the samurai is different (or even superior) in concept or fighting technique to elite warriors of other cultures while Norse berserkers, Greek hoplites, Turkish janissaries, European knights and others are not. What I'm interested in is how the samurai is going to fulfill a different role to the Warrior.

In fact, here's a countersuggestion. Rename every katana in the game to something else - let's take your suggestion from earlier and call it a tachi. Then add a new attribute to the Warrior for two-handed swords. This brings the total number of attributes up to six, but since you're only going to be using one weapon at a time anyway, this doesn't make things as complex for the Warrior than it would for other professions - you can deal with runes just by having another piece of spare armour. Give some of the skills a samurai-esque flavour, and load up on Tactics and/or a secondary profession for the grace element (I'll even let you use Riposte and similar skills with a two-handed sword).

There. Not only do you have a samurai, but the people who want their character to represent, say, a German landsknecht and so on are equally pleased - likely with a different set of skills, of course. Okay, so you're official profession label is still going to be 'warrior', but, really, what's in a name?

Of course, introducing new attribute lines in an existing profession could be setting a dangerous precedent, but I would say introducing new professions for culture-specific variants of existing professions would be an even more dangerous precedent - and a new attribute line would appear to keep more people happy (introducing a new variation of a fighting style without tying it to a particular culture!) as well as requiring less work to implement.

BahamutKaiser · Jul 20, 2006, 04:20 AM // 04:20

As a Korean, I know a bit more about orientals then just reading about them, thank you.

From Wikipedia, you can find that early battles in japan where focal on each individuals skill rather than the ability to mass troops, Samurai are very unique in their belief that the katana was a representation of their soul, not a tool, and their code is more valuable than their life.

Effective Katana forging was developed by Masamune, a Japanese sword smith, it is nothing to hammer out a piece of steel as an icon, the katana Samurai originally wore where decorations, in a time when effective sword forging techniques where not available. Masamune was the father of the Katana that could actually be wielded as a legitimate weapon.

As a Korean I can tell you from family heritage that Japan is the more secluded then other oriental cultures, they are on a seperate island, and for certain periods they ostrisized foriegners. Because of their geographic and cultural seclution they are distinctly different than other orientals, and if you even learn Japanese and visit Japan, I'm sure there are some who would make a very sincere point of that. Koreans are still treated as second class citizens.

So why don't you cram your external observations. As a Korean myself, I will speak for any antisemitism MY culture has, and that doesn't make a Samurai a bad class idea for a GAME. As if I didn't mention the lack of significance in antisemitism compared to the use of Dervish, identifiably Muslem, as a class title for Nightfall.

I'm glad you tolk some time to read wikipedia, I'm sure that makes you an expert. I don't know a whole crapload about Samurai, but the idea of a unique and intriging fighter is still a great one, just like the idea for a person who magically fires elements, it doesn't have to be real to be a made into a cool and enjoyable class to play.

Since your a bit dense I will point out that the idea for using Japanese culture in a future expansion would be a great idea for another expansion which doesn't focus on a specific culture, like Prophecies. It is far from obsurd, it is a perfect idea for a chapter which explores islands with unique cultures, simular to exsisting ones, but seperate, exactly like Japan, also including cultures like Celtic, Jamacan, and many islanders from all over the world. Again I have to laugh at your utter lack of insight and creativity, thanks for blindly ranting with every other cheap shot who can't understand better ideas.

Eloians where briefly introduced as a wiped out culture, just like Orr, making a chapter with ties to another oriental culture is hardly taboo, since we are bringing up ties to a culture who was last reported wiped out. I will admit that Nightfall is starting to look more like a middle eastern background than an african one, which is rather original, but locking off any previously visited cultures or anything simular is a poor plan.

And as for ignorance about Oriental people being more martial arts developed than other cultures, I will just laugh. Koreans call P.E. Tai Kwon Do, I don't have to speculate about oriental culture, I've experienced first hand. Martial Arts is an intregal part of oriental heritage, superior fighting technique is something that orientals have treasured not just as a combat tool but as a way of life. The natural conclusion is that oriental people have closer ties to martial arts of which some dedicate their life to its study would be and are better fighters and martial artist.

Now you can take your Western views which you tried to make objective and cram them, I had this same discussion when I made the shinobi idea about how people might be antisematic to orientals or how other combatants worldwide could compare. The simple truth is no other culture practices martial arts as wholey as the oriental people, and their martial arts have more meaning, which is why Monks a jaded as fighters because everyone thinks a monk is a shaolin monk, and why ninjas are known to be the best Spies because they are profoundly educated in espionage, or why Samurai is so much different then other warriors.

Why don't you study Wikipedia some more and analyze the difference in weapon craftmanship and emphasis in martial arts from the orient, it is much more elaborate and dedicated, that is why Samurai is so distinct, and no one would confuse the difference between a Samurai Warrior and any other warrior, that is like comparing vampires to undead, a gross generalization.

At this point I will thank you to not bring up any third party observations about oriental antisemitism for a fantasy game class idea, antisemitism which I doubt you know much about. But thanks for pointing out the invasion of Japanese nearby continent and their success in combat, but not in just eras as recent as WWII, but over several periods in the past, of which Samurai have show themselves victorious repeatedly. I'm less than educated about the success of other forces against Japan, but if Japan was ever occupied by any other country besides the US, I would like to know.

And yes, the Japanese Code of honor is higher than the english Code of honor, Again speaking from personal experience as I spent much of grade school living in England and learned about their history from their own historians, not a bunch of wikipedia compilations and moviemania. Knights had tournaments for entertainment, Samurai had Duels for the simple purpose of pitting their talent, and no Knights didn't excersise this like Samurai did.

If you need a Samurai Suggestion which has great examples of unique techniques and gameplay additions, read my Samurai concept, the Dashing techniques make this class an effective combination of single stroke attacks and movement, possibly yeilding damage on several targets. A skill which should not be added to warrior, and would not work better on any other identity than Samurai. I will mention that I intend to Develope an even better Samurai concept soon, even though my previous idea has elements deserving of a new class already.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s....php?t=3004827

And trying to add more weapons to warrior is a crock, obviously katana or tachi wielding should be added to Assassin if to any class. If Anet had gone with my original idea for Shinobi than we wouldn't have this issue, we would have an oriental combatant which covers multiple oriental styles and not need more. But I imagine that Anet decided to withhold Samurai and Hand to Hand combat techniques as an option for future classes instead of using them up in on class.

Unless anyone else can step forward with better experience and knowledge of this subject I will ask that all your "objective" speculation stay within the realm of whether or not Samurai is a functional and enjoyable class to add. All this crap about how some people don't want Samurai and antisemitism against Japanese does not hold as a legitimate issue against Samurai as a character class in a fantasy game, again, I do not even need to argue the popularity of the class, it is obviosly appreciated.

actionjack · Jul 20, 2006, 04:50 AM // 04:50

In reading the 2 arguement, I must say... people write too much. Learn to use bullet points. Too many words, and the main points are lost.

My view is this... Samurai is differnt. While similar to Knight in alot of aspect, the two still have few difference, and cannot use to say one is better or worst than another. Also katanas are sharp...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdF9k...&search=katana
(Machine Gun vs Katana)

For names, I don't like Samurai much.. but again, Dervish is also a foreign word, and the word Samurai ingrinded much into our pop-culture, so it "might" be okie...

But, does history and cultural lesson really mean much in term of Game?

Is Samurai another warrior clone? That would purely depend on their skills. If the suggestion can give enought uniquenss to them, like how Ranger would be differnt from Elem on the scope of Range Damager, or how warrior is differ from Assassin, than I think Samurai would be a good addtion. (I also have a draft of Samruai class, that is in Nevin's thread... you can look there to see how I try not make it another Warrior clone)

A problem would be how to add them in? Personally, I would add them as part of Faction Exapansion (not a new chapter, but expansion.. meaing you must have a GW game to play) where a new island near Canthra call "Hopan" opens up.

So, in conclusion... while I like Kimchis, I think draxynnic made the better point in this round.. however, still not enought to persuade me into thinking Samurai are without their virture (in term of addtion to the game). It comes down to how creative and unique the suggested skill in CC are.

unholy guardian · Jul 20, 2006, 04:56 AM // 04:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjack

In reading the 2 arguement, I must say... people write too much. Learn to use bullet points. Too many words, and the main points are lost.

My view is this... Samurai is differnt. While similar to Knight in alot of acept, the two still have few difference, and cannot use to say one is better or worst than another. Also katana are sharp...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdF9k...&search=katana
(Machine Gun vs Katana)

For names, I don't like Samurai much.. but again, Dervish is also a forign word, and its ingrinded much into our pop-culture, so it "might" be okie.

But, does history and cultural lesson really mean much in term of a Game?

Is Samurai another warrior clone? That would purely depend on their skills. If the suggestion can give enought uniquenss to them, like how Ranger would be differnt from Elem on the scope of Range Damager, or how warrior is differ from Assassin, than I think Samurai would be a good addtion. (I also have a draft of Samruai class, that is in Nevin's thread... you can look there to see how I try not make it another Warrior clone)

A problem would be how to add them in? Personally, I would add them as part of Faction Exapansion (not a new chapter, but expansion.. meaing you must have a GW game to play) where a new island near Canthra call "Hopan" opens up.

So, in conclusion... while I like Kimchis, I think draxynnic made the better point in this round.. however, still not enought to persuade me into thinking Samurai are with out their virture (in term of addtion to game). It comes down to how creative and unique the suggested skill in CC are.

took the words outta my mouth and then some

prodigy ming · Jul 20, 2006, 06:08 AM // 06:08

Just because you are Korean doesn’t make you an oriental expert either. You need to chill out and start defending yourself in a debate like a civilized person instead of calling people dense and telling what others need to do. I don’t understand your emphasizes on yourself being Korean… lots of people in this board are of Asian heritage including myself and we don’t go running around bragging about it.

On one hand you claim that you don’t know much about samurai… on the other hand you explain how because you are Korean that you understand how superior they are compare to the rest of the world. That seems highly contradictory.

Your idea of originality and creativity also seems rather strange. Since when is importing a historical subclass of warrior like samurai or shinobi an original or creative thinking? More importantly, as many people have mentioned already, samurai just doesn’t’ have a unique role. We already have an assassin class that doesn’t’ really have a role in PvE and only a second choice in PvP, what does brining in another sword wielder accomplish?

I never intended to use the Japanese invasion as a reason for not having samurai as a character class in a fantasy game. I brought it up as a rebuttal that not everyone loves samurai as much as you thought.
The Japanese success in combat in WWII has nothing to do with samurai, so that doesn’t support your point anyways. Most Japanese fought battles were amongst themselves. Even when the Mongols invaded, it was only with the help of kamikaze that the Japanese force managed to droved them off. An island country such as Japan will also be difficult to maintain control in ancient times and that probably accounts for the lack of effort for the Chinese to invade her. Besides, China, as the only power that was most likely capable of defeating Japan in those days constantly has to struggle with invading horde from the north.

You seem to be awfully harsh on people who read from wikipedia when you start your own post referencing to it. Also, don’t automatically assume people get their information from wikipedia just because you do. The reason people cite Wikipedia is because it’s the most popular source that is somewhat informative and easy to access. There is no point to cite scholarly journals on an internet debate is there?

draxynnic · Jul 20, 2006, 10:19 AM // 10:19

Aye. Wikipedia is convenient to link to, but I do have other sources. One of the ones I refer to is the article Samurai vs Knight in the September 2004 issue of Dragon Magazine. Not the most authoritive source, I know, but the author (John Clements, if you want to look him up) does seem to have some decent qualifications, although admittedly he does seem to have more of a European focus. If you can get hold of it, though, I found it an interesting enough read to purchase the issue on the basis of that article alone.

On codes of honour: Unless you studied chivalric systems, I don't think living in England would give you an idea of how deep the chivalric code was, as that code is no longer adhered to apart from the occasional remnant (and that's without going into what may be found in other nations). I'm not claiming to be an expert myself - the samurai code could well have been more developed than the chivalric code - but we can't say for sure, and even if the chivalric code didn't match the samurai code, it's a step in a similar direction.

On craftsmanship, I quote:

"Except for major conflicts in Korea and against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing, and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might. It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as flexible nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armours as some forms of medieval swords had to be."

Reading other parts of the article, the katana is clearly a good, possibly even superior, blade - one earlier line than the above reads "(the katana) is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power" - but the difference in quality between a katana and a good European sword is a little less than the difference between the ultimate blade and a crudely sharpened lump of metal.

Another quote regarding martial arts:

"Besides, although not widely appreciated, it is now well-documented (particularly from medieval Italian and German fighting manuals) that European knights and men-at-arms fully integrated advanced grappling, wrestling and disarming techniques into their fighting skills. There is no evidence to the myth that knightly martial culture was any less sophisticated or highly developed than its Asian counterparts-its traditions and methods only fell out of use with the social and technological changes brought about by advances in firearms and cannons."

On being a functional class, I think my opinion has been expressed - it's far too close to an existing profession for my liking. However, this is not exactly a unique opinion from me - I suspect the majority of my posts in this forum express this opinion at some point or another (And I'll be watching the Dervish very carefully)

. I remember looking through your proposal at one time (as well as your dragon proposal) and not being especially impressed, but I might go and have another look.

BahamutKaiser · Jul 21, 2006, 12:02 AM // 00:02

I made a very strong point about my ethnicity because nobody has any more reason to be antisematic to Japanese than Korean, and not realizing that just proves you don't know how much Japan has done to Korea throught history. So as someone who has direct ties to Japanese antisemitism I am saying your antisematic disapproval doesn't mean jack. And I made a point of it from the begining that we are already getting even more antisematic titles so that arguement is obviously expired.

I pointed out my understanding of "Oriental Martial Arts" and that it is superior to other martial arts around the world. The fact that I don't have an significant education in Samurai does not mean I don't know about oriental martial arts, Samurai in particular is something I have not had a chance to study. And when I say I don't know so much about something, it is in comparison the very dedicated and thourough knowledge I have from study and experience of other subjects, not a gross lack of understanding. As a note, I have taken Tai Kwon Do and Karate, and I would say Karate is pathetic, primarily that crap they call Karate in the US, though I don't know much about Karate in Japan. I believe that Karate and Tai Kwan Do are both olympic sports, and you are required to wear a chest protector in Tai Kwon Do, and not Karate as far as I know, the kicks can be lethal even in a "friendly" match. Although I would imagine that Chinese have the best grasp of hand to hand combat among the 3. My father tolk Tung Sudo (never seen it spelled), my uncle trained under the same master as Bruce Lee, my mother has explained to me the mystical claims of Kung Fu practitioners which still exsist, and I trained under the same Tai Kwon Do instructor as the Junior Womens Gold Medalist, shes kind of hot without the pads. Yes I do know a thing or 2 about martial arts, tell me if you know more.

Martial Arts isn't oriental, it is any combative arts which have been used by any culture. The fact is that no culture developes and adores martial arts as much as orientals. You may argue that the only reason Oriental martial arts have developed further is because they are studied more in the orient than any other culture, but the conclusion of that is orientals have more interest and desire to improve in the old ways of combat than any other culture. And this isn't an overnight occurance. When guns where introduced to Japan, they made better and higher quantities of them than even the European cultures that introduced them, yet the Japanese have managed to maintain and develope their martial art over the centuries, even through periods of restriction against certain practices.

As I said before, I learned about the Knights behavior and culture from the source, I went to private schools in England wile living in Bedford, England, near Lakenheath. I have been to Sherwood Forest, I have been to Edinburgh Castle, yes the real locations, And I have studied, as part of my cirriculum in History class, the nature and behavior of the english, and their knights as part of my education. Now unless any of you have actually had higher education about english history and knight behavior than I will retain the assumption that none of you know as much about real Knights than I do. And I will point out that, like any culture, the English Historians glorified their culture just as much as any other culture does, believe me they act like the American Revolution was a minor upset.

You will have a better time proving you know more about Samurai then Knights with me. As you have realized, if you do some poking around, japanese weapons, not just their Katana, but all of their weapons were constructed to a higher standard than other cultures, they made Naginata instead of Glaives and their Halberds were made better as well, notice the way the blade is afixed to the pole, and the quality of the blade. Their Bows where perhaps the only thing that outsiders made better, but when guns where introduced, Japanese made better guns then the people who introduced them to the Japanese.

The emphasis in weapon craftmanship, the continued interest and preservation of their martial arts shows their greater dedication. Logically, a culture which is more dedicated to martial arts practices them more, making them better, practice makes perfect. But they don't teach logic in american schools do they?, I guess "you" would have to see a Knight and Samurai fight in reality to deliberate which is better.

I never said this was a good enough Samurai Idea, I think I pointed out multiple ways it would need to or should be altered to be a good idea, so telling me that because this idea isn't sufficient that Samurai isn't good enough really doesn't amount to anything. Samurai as an identity is a great one, perhaps the most popular warrior type in pop culture, which is why I have said there is no arguement about whether Samurai is a good enough identity. Making a good Samurai function for a class in GW is just a matter of creativity and interest, and if Anet accepts Samurai as a future class than they certainly could make a good build for it (although I might argue that mine are better and much more fun). All this nonsense about how we can't have a Samurai doesn't stand, it may not be the class you like, but there are more than enough that like it. This is the exact same topic I had with class subjects in the beginning, and I even had to make it clear that there would be new classes in the future, just because some don't like it doesn't mean others, more, arn't out there that do like it, and your distaste certainly doesn't restrict it.

I would admit that we already got a strong serving of oriental culture in factions, but saying there will never be more or shouldn't be more is narrow. Oriental gamers are a significant if not larger portion of the GW community and the game has been introduced to Japan as well, oriental people, ever how small the country, dominate online activity, they are far more active in the gaming world, enough so that a country the size of a small state produces as many or more enthusist as the US. Telling me that a vast portion of the fanbase is going to have their culture benched from here on is naive IMO.

Out of all the silly and unusual class identities out there, your hard press if able at all to beat an archtype like Samurai, I mean look at what we are getting next, Dervish and Paragon, a class based on an obscure cultural practice which doesn't involve combat, and a redefinition of a phrase into a class instead of a description of excellence, and your telling me Samurai isn't good enough? I didn't see anyone asking for Dervish did I?, and very few requests for a scythe wielding class, certainly not as much as Samurai, and I am certain there are more suggestions for a Spear fighting class instead of a spear throwing support class. I'll bet most people would have chosen a fun Samurai class over the Assassin we have now........why is Samurai not good enough?

Logic needs to be a required subject taught from kindergarden through college, I get tired of having to explain every perception I have in detail before anyone can catch my drift.

OMFGimCUTE · Jul 21, 2006, 12:36 AM // 00:36

For the Katanas, they should be 2 handed so they wont use shields or somthing and it will be cool

actionjack · Jul 21, 2006, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

On craftsmanship, I quote:

"Except for major conflicts in Korea and against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing, and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might. It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as flexible nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armours as some forms of medieval swords had to be."

Reading other parts of the article, the katana is clearly a good, possibly even superior, blade - one earlier line than the above reads "(the katana) is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power" - but the difference in quality between a katana and a good European sword is a little less than the difference between the ultimate blade and a crudely sharpened lump of metal.

I like to pretend I am smart.. so I will join on a small part of this agruement too...

draxynnic, what you said about Katana is mostly true. Its a harder and sharper weapon, becuase of the many fold they put in while makeing the sword, which knock out alot of impurity, leaving pure steel. (part of the reason they do that, I believe, is lack of steel material on the island) Now, with agreeing that Katana are harder to wield due to their sharp-yet-frail nature (you can break a katana easily with a stone) won't you agree that therefore, Katana wield require more training? Unlike many Medevil Western weapons, (like sword, hammer, etc) which require bit less skill to wield, where even a commoner can have enough skill to use one, Katana would need more traning and finess to use. Usually one need less of brute force to wield a katana, more depend on, stance, percise strike, force-absorbing block (usually by moving your sword with the force to soke up more impact), etc. In term of game, that is to justify that Katana can be a attribute of their own, and can be very different from that of Swordmastery.

Knights have their own Matial Art and school of fighting as well, but is just less know in Pop-culture (as well as less perserved), compare to those of Easstern ones. I think I read somewhere on wiki of style of fighting with dagger, design to attack the weakpoints of a Knights armor (the joints).

Also there are lot more lore about Samurai. Japanese has done a very good job in perserving those, and even Japanese school children knows alot of stories about a famous Samurai or two. (it also shows up alot on their pop-culture) Famous Duals on battlefield, one many slaying hundred, their honor and loyality, the willingness to die for a cause, are much of what the Samurai are famous for (of couse, there are only a handful of the more famouse one from the history. Not everyone is a crazy killing machine)

Also remember, to try to include more Pop-culture reference into your agrument. History lesson are nice, but not everyone knows them.

draxynnic · Jul 21, 2006, 02:26 AM // 02:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjack

draxynnic, what you said about Katana is mostly true. Its a harder and sharper weapon, becuase of the many fold they put in while makeing the sword, which knock out alot of impurity, leaving pure steel. (part of the reason they do that, I believe, is lack of steel material on the island) Now, with agreeing that Katana are harder to wield due to their sharp-yet-frail nature (you can break a katana easily with a stone) won't you agree that therefore, Katana wield require more training? Unlike many Medevil Western weapons, (like sword, hammer, etc) which require bit less skill to wield, where even a commoner can have enough skill to use one, Katana would need more traning and finess to use. Usually one need less of brute force to wield a katana, more depend on, stance, percise strike, force-absorbing block (usually by moving your sword with the force to soke up more impact), etc. In term of game, that is to justify that Katana can be a attribute of their own, and can be very different from that of Swordmastery.

I can see it requiring more training you use one properly without risking breaking it, yes. On the other hand, from my reading (and I can't quote until I get home) pretty much anything you can do with a katana you can do with a European sword of similar size and weight. The katana is, indeed, superior for the style of fighting that it is designed for, but you can perform the same moves with the European blade. Meanwhile, there are tricks you can do with certain European sword designs that you simply can't do with a katana (for instance, ever noticed that some larger European swords have blunt portions in the blade? That isn't because the smith got lazy - they're actually alternate handles so the sword can be handled something like a quarterstaff for close-in fighting. Try doing that with a katana

)

Quote:

Knights have their own Matial Art and school of fighting as well, but is just less know in Pop-culture (as well as less perserved), compare to those of Easstern ones. I think I read somewhere on wiki of style of fighting with dagger, design to attack the weakpoints of a Knights armor (the joints).

Yes, they did have such a dagger-fighting style - but to be fair, so did samurai.

Quote:

Also there are lot more lore about Samurai. Japanese has done a very good job in perserving those, and even Japanese school children knows alot of stories about a famous Samurai or two. (it also shows up alot on their pop-culture) Famous Duals on battlefield, one many slaying hundred, their honor and loyality, the willingness to die for a cause, are much of what the Samurai are famous for (of couse, there are only a handful of the more famouse one from the history. Not everyone is a crazy killing machine)

Which is, pretty much, exactly the point I'm trying to get across. Samurai are seen as 'better' simply because more is known about what they did (and what they supposedly did) while knightly traditions (and their counterparts in most parts of the world) have, for the most part, faded (and even, to a greater or lesser degree, made fun of. A certain scene in Robin Hood: Men in Tights with a series of armoured knights being knocked down like dominoes comes to mind...). However, this is not necassarily evidence that the oriental traditions were so much superior than Western and other traditions in their heyday - it simply shows a greater dedication to preserving their past. Which is an admirable trait in and of itself, but not necassarily a sign that what is being preserved - and, I might note, further developed - is so much better than what existed in other parts of the world. It certainly is now, because unlike in other parts of the world, it has continued to be improved over the centuries. In their time, however, knights were pretty darned dedicated, it's just that Europeans on the whole have a tendency to forget about what they consider (rightly or wrongly) to be obsolete.

On, qualifications: No, I don't have university level history qualifications - I chose to go with physics instead. However, I did have a nasty habit, while in high school and before, of reading history books for fun (Hey, as you said, cultures tend to glorify their own history... and I knew darn well there had to be SOMETHING more interesting than Captain Cook five or six times over

), and even now I have a nasty habit of doing a bit of historical research on the side when I have the opportunity. Authoritive, no, but I think I can claim amateur historian status to a certain extent

. However, nothing you have said rebuts my point that, even if the samurai code of honour is 'higher' than the knightly equivalent, there IS a knightly equivalent. The samurai code of honour may well have been the most highly developed in the world, but this simply puts them on top of the ladder rather than on a seperate ladder entirely.

On making a profession out of it: My main objection, from a design standpoint, is that you're going at it the wrong way. My preferred way to develop a new profession would be to find a gap in capabilities, fill it, and then think about the label afterwards. Consider the Assassin. Whatever you may think about whether it is underpowered, overpowered, or just right, it fills a clear gap - that of a light, mobility-based warrior, one that caters to those looking for any kind of skirmishing character, not just the ninja-wannabes. If you didn't have the Assassin, I'd wager there'd be a rogue, a skirmisher, or some other profession that fills the same role.

Instead of seeing a hole and filling it, however, what you seem to be doing is deciding that there must be a samurai profession in the game, and trying to force a samurai-sized hole for it to fit in. Let us, for the sake of this discussion, accept the hypothesis that there is a role or playing style, seperate from the Warrior, that the samurai could fill, and you found it. Ask yourself the question: How would you react if ANet chose to apply a different name to the profession that fills the hole you have seen? Would you be happy that the new capability has been added, even if under a different label, or would you scream at ANet for missing the opportunity to introduce the samurai and go looking for another role that you could squeeze it into?

From what I have seen - and I hope I'm wrong - I suspect your response would be closer to the latter. And it is this attitude I object to. If there is indeed a hole in the capabilities and playing styles allowed by existing professions and the Samurai turned out to be the appropriate choice, I would be quite happy to see it take its place among the other professions in the game, whether to incorporate it would involve a return to Cantha, a visit to a new part of the world with a Japanese-flavoured culture (probably near Cantha, as while Japan is indeed a distinct culture, there are definite Chinese influences) or some other means. What I don't want to see is a profession introduced due to demand for the label that just plays like a Warrior with a different skill set.

As I believe I hinted at in an earlier post - this is why I'll be watching the Dervish closely, because I do have concerns in that direction. Should it work out to be a sufficiently different experience to playing a Warrior, however, I'm not sure if that helps or hinders your case - it would be showing there are other ways to do melee than shown by the Warrior and Assassin, but on the other hand, I suspect that there are only a finite number of melee playing styles that can be catered for, and the Dervish could well have taken the last one.

actionjack · Jul 21, 2006, 02:47 AM // 02:47

draxynnic :

I guess it is my mistake in not making my point clear. I am not agruing against "is Samurai being better warrior thatn Knight", nor I ever sided with BahamutKaiser. (I am not a too big of fan of Kimchi on Fish&Chip.. thought that does sound yummy....) My focus is more on "Is Samruai differnt from Knight, with relation to how they could be added to the game".

With the example of Bastard Sword that you provided, just prove further of my point, of how Katana "could" be a mastery of its own, and not necessary fall under swordsmanship. Other skills and attributes can further be added by elaborating on the many other difference of a Samurai to a Western Warrior.

The Hole filling is a good idea to think about future class. But also one important factor would have to do with appeal. If the general agreement along the GW's target audience (young male teens) that Samurai with katana is cool, and they would want to play as one, that is enough reason for it to be develop. (just like why Dervish would use a scythes)

Now, another question of "is having another closely resemble clone of exisiting class that offers similar role a bad thing?" rises. I think its alright, afterall, varity is what GW wants. Since each prof is not really tie down to one template of things, it could be view as futher built, or sub-class. HOWEVER, I would never put samurai high on my list, and would rather see it just part of some minior expansions. (unless someone can make them unique enough) Island of Honpan Exapansion Pack FTW (Nihon + Japan)

draxynnic · Jul 21, 2006, 04:10 AM // 04:10

It could be worthy of another attribute, yes. So could using a greatsword like a quarterstaff - something I don't think I've ever seen reproduced in a roleplaying game

. It just doesn't make stand out as being a whole new profession, and adding attributes to existing classes does raise another set of problems (when exactly does the number of attributes become too many?)

I can see a point about variety, but I would counterpoint that the primary/secondary profession system allows variety to be achieved in an exponential fashion to the number of professions. One other thing that makes me wary about overlapping is that allowing overlaps could raise the spectre of having class A that can do everything that class B can do, but better - something that would require extreme care to avoid.

The other issue are opportunity cost economics - when overlapping classes are being made, what is not being made? Even if all the various updates, such as auction houses and so on, are completed and there are no remaining 'holes', there is always the possibility of expanding the world and making more content. Of course, it could be that the profession design team is just there for making professions and there is no such opportunity cost, but each proposal has to be weighed in the balance of what is not being done while that proposal is being implemented.

That said, the idea of subclasses could be interesting. I remember from the early-to-mid alpha that the Mesmer spent some time as a profession that could only be taken as a secondary profession until enough skills were developed for it to stand on its own. Using subclasses to represent more specific forms of an archetype - say, laying a samurai subclass over a Warrior primary - could be an interesting way to expand the options, although I wouldn't know how easy it would be to implement and balance.

BahamutKaiser · Jul 22, 2006, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Yes the Katana is so much more different than European swords, and is used in a totaly different manner. First of all, a good Samurai finds open points to attack and only swings to kill, he doesn't fhail around with his sword swinging like a "Warrior". European swords are typically made to either pierce armor or bash it through, A Katana isn't ment to hit armor at all. You can truthfully make better comparrisons between a long dagger and a short sword than you can with basicly any sword made elsewhere and a Katana. And there are techniques which Samurai have perfected with Katana and the sheath which cannot be done better with another weapon. You cannot quickdraw a broadsword, nor reach with a shortsword, a light yet medium long Katana is the perfect length and weight for quickdraw techniques like Iaido, these are not things that work as well with any other sword if at all.

You can also notice that Katana are wielded in a fencing fashion, although still different than a saber or rapier, Katana are simular in that they are blades of finesse. Truely, the Katana is closest related to a Saber, a 2 handed Saber with a curve. The difference in wielding techniques between Katana and any other sword is rather significant, very few light swords are made for wielding with 2 hands.

This may have developed because of Europeans naturally stronger and taller build, orientals, especially native orientals, are typically shorter and less bulky, fit and strong if excersised properly, but still smaller in stature, and most oriental combat techniques involve more skill than brute force because that is what they are talented in.

In comparison to "Warrior" who swings around a sword which is rightfully too heavy to wield in 2 hands in only one, A Samurai class who uses a light sword in 2 hands with fencing and quick attacks is basicly the opposite side of the spectrum in sword wielding technique. If any other sword wielding type or class is different enough from the Broadsword thrashing Warrior it is a Katana wielding Samurai.

An attack pattern which has powerful, calculated hits, skills which focus on dashing through and hitting hard with one hit, and counters which preempt incoming attacks with critical counters is very different than Warrior, Assassin, and from what we know so far, even dervish.

Assassins mobility is very different than dash attacks, the has teleport skills which help him accend or escape from a particular target or to a particular allie. And his advancing teleports suck. A Samurai which uses Dashing attacks which allow him to move in a straight path hitting foes in a line is a highly effective and unique technique. Using powerful Single attacks to hit several foes in a totaly new attack path, as well as move not just to but through the enemy grants a Samurai class a completely original technique.

Besides that, we do not need to stay withing the limitations of reality to make an interesting Samurai class, truthfully, swinging a 2'6"-3' broadsword in one hand with any accuracy is rather unreal, the least you can do is assume these unique Katana are mystically forged swords which don't just snap. Afterall, part of the mystique of the Katana is it's superior forging, in a fantasy game, it may as well be a magical forging.

My point in this is that a Katana and the Samurai that weild it are more original from a Sword wielding Warrior than a Axe wielder, or even a club wielder. And the difference between Katana single calculated strikes vs Daggers multiple strikes is rather significant as well.

As for Samurai Honor vs Knight Honor, you can believe what you like, from my personal experience with european culture and oriental culture, I would say orientals are more dignified and convicted than europeans. And from my study of Samurai Legends and Knight Legends, ever how exagerated they may be, Samurai Legends are historically documented, King Aurther and the KotRT are barly tracable by historical reconstruction, if not totaly fabricated, as well as most english stories (about as sound as the theory of Atlantis). If you study the history of how knights really acted and functioned, you wouldn't be so impressed, slave driving tyrants and looters are what they really were.

I would imagine Knights Templar to be about as honorable and dignified as Samurai, but Knights in general....good at scaring serfs into servitude. Perhaps Samurai were just as bad in reality though. Either way, that isn't imporant to the Samurai class idea, so it doesn't matter.