Curse

Nevin · Apr 21, 2006, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Okay, this is just a general issue post that I feel is rightfully needed, judged by the posts I've been seeing lately.

Many people have been coming up with new professions which are rather interesting for the most part, some not so interesting. But none the less, before you post please think it out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few steps you should consider before posting...

1. Just because an idea is not so great that doesn't mean to you have to bash it. By bash I mean simple comments like "wow stupid" or "lol plz no fan boy classes", these don't contribute at all. Type out why you dislike it, atleast 5 sentences; I mean for the most part we're all young adults/adults. So show it.

2. Guild Wars has done a very good job at creating the GENERIC classes. Ex: Warrior (Tank), Ranger (Support), Mesmer (Build Wrecker), Monk (Healer), Necromancer (Dark caster), Elemantist (Wizard), Assassin (Rouge). With these generic classes its very hard to create new professions that aren't overlapping. Even the Ritualist is an overlapping profession (N/R/Mo) according to many people even including Anet. So with this said, please no "wow we already have a W/N we don't need this" Because a Warrior with plague touch is very far from something like a Dark Knight.

3. If the person put the time and effort into making his or her post (and it is noticable). Compliment them, obviously they took a portion of their time to contribute to the community.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And with that being said, I'd hope the posting quality of the viewers on this thread increases.

GentleBreezes · Apr 21, 2006, 11:05 PM // 23:05

/signed

I like constructive criticism...

R A C · Apr 21, 2006, 11:42 PM // 23:42

/signed. Way too many people just post "lame, unoriginal, too noobish" and don't even think enough to type out what works and what needs improvement.

actionjack · Apr 21, 2006, 11:43 PM // 23:43

/Sign

expect on Nevin's CC thread....

mega_jamie · Apr 21, 2006, 11:45 PM // 23:45

I enjoy constrocutve critism too /signed

although some people really do need ot think about their builds, it does annoy me a bit to see unbalanced, un thoughtout concepts. Also the concepts which pretty much are a W/Mo etc generally dont do anything for me, as I've seen a few (not here) which had just recycled W/Mo skills with diff names, so it oculd be combined with another secondary class to make that persons ultimate choice of char.

I think as long as people are inteligent and thoughtful in their concepts and try to keep originality and balance, then theres no reason people should flame, Fan-boy cocnepts or no.

Matsumi · Apr 22, 2006, 12:04 AM // 00:04

/signed

Sometimes I just get the feeling that a person just came in, read the first few lines of it, then decided to post a comment that doesn't really make sense. I mean, if you can't read the whole thing and take it in for a while, what's the point of leaving a comment about it? lol sorry, just the way I feel sometimes.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Apr 22, 2006, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Wholeheartily agreed.
Well written, Nevin.

Cheers, mate.

Undivine · Apr 22, 2006, 02:09 AM // 02:09

But I quite like flaming.

Ken Dei · Apr 22, 2006, 03:56 AM // 03:56

"Signet of Approval"

*Slithers back into the dark shadows to watch and inspect the new classes as usual....* Buwahahahaha!

BahamutKaiser · Apr 22, 2006, 04:00 AM // 04:00

/signed.

Personal opinions arn't justification to offend a writer, or hack an idea. If you don't like it, or arn't interested, then that's all you need to say. Unless you can point out some serious flaws in the way that class works, you have no right to critisize it, subjective opinions arn't a license to critisize, they are just your personal interests.

actionjack · Apr 22, 2006, 04:18 AM // 04:18

There is a difference between
"I just don't like it" as oppose to "This Class suck"

Opinion is fine, but if you generalize things, give reasons.

Epinephrine · Apr 24, 2006, 02:54 PM // 14:54

My view?

Anet is not without a lot of sources of inspiration. If it is a character class like that in ANY other online game, or heck, in any role-playing game, just consider that it has already occurred to them.

You think it'd be great to be a big barbarian specialising in dual wielding and two-handed weapons? Guess what, they've thought of it. There is absolutely NO POINT in bringing up drivel like that.

UNLESS you have an interesting new mechanic (and not something stupid like dual wielding or stealth, as both of those have been discussed a million times) don't bother posting. The ritualist comes with a set of new mechanics - spirits with constant attacks in areas, a primary attribute boosting the health of conjured creatures and ashes - all interesting stuff. I don't think anyone would have shot down the ritualist had it bee suggested here, as it
1.) is original
2.) suggests new mechanics
3.) plays differently (and this IS an important consideration - if you read the early stuff by ANet from when GW was in development they wanted each class to have a different play-feel to them,)

So, since the ritualist uses many area-control tactics, with new skill types and mechanics, in an interesting thematic package it'd likely get great feedback. The millionth "I want a martial artist who can punch through armour" thread will get jeers.

So - if you've got an idea, great - develop it into something worth posting. A "Dark Knight" is just a W/N unless you have developed a whole new mechanic for it, and it has a different playstyle. Even the assassin is a bit iffy, but with the hexing/enchanting/shadow step stuff they've managed to differentiate it enough from a warrior that I don't fnid it too bad. I was really worried it'd essentially be a R/W - stances, weak armour but lots of evasion and concentrationg on high attack speed while using more energy-based attacks.

I agree that we shouldn't be rude, but it's somewhat pointless to suggest a barbarian or brawler, or shapeshifter, or any of these classes. Remenmber that the people coming up with the game read the same books you did, and played the same games. It's not like they don't have a D&D manual around, or that they don't know about Diablo 2 or WoW. These are industry experts, and unless you can back your idea up a bit it's not worth suggesting it.

That's my view. If you spit out a 4 page suggestion which basically reads as a class from WoW you've wasted my time, your time, the readers of the board's time and the developer's time. We're all aware of these games. You aren't bringing anything new to the table. If you come up with a neat idea that is feasible in game, great!

Vilaptca · Apr 24, 2006, 06:10 PM // 18:10

What I'd like to see myself in this forum, is less one word posts. More specifically /signed and /unsigned. Fewer "thats a horrible idea" posts, and more well thought out replies that actually add to the discussion.

Though I'd like to see this for all threads in Sardelac, not just ones on new professions...

Kool Pajamas · Apr 24, 2006, 07:30 PM // 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilaptca

What I'd like to see myself in this forum, is less one word posts. More specifically /signed and /unsigned. Fewer "thats a horrible idea" posts, and more well thought out replies that actually add to the discussion.

Though I'd like to see this for all threads in Sardelac, not just ones on new professions...

Yes. Like in the skill suggestion threads especially....

Ken Dei · Apr 24, 2006, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

My view?

Anet is not without a lot of sources of inspiration. If it is a character class like that in ANY other online game, or heck, in any role-playing game, just consider that it has already occurred to them.

You think it'd be great to be a big barbarian specialising in dual wielding and two-handed weapons? Guess what, they've thought of it. There is absolutely NO POINT in bringing up drivel like that.

UNLESS you have an interesting new mechanic (and not something stupid like dual wielding or stealth, as both of those have been discussed a million times) don't bother posting. The ritualist comes with a set of new mechanics - spirits with constant attacks in areas, a primary attribute boosting the health of conjured creatures and ashes - all interesting stuff. I don't think anyone would have shot down the ritualist had it bee suggested here, as it
1.) is original
2.) suggests new mechanics
3.) plays differently (and this IS an important consideration - if you read the early stuff by ANet from when GW was in development they wanted each class to have a different play-feel to them,)

So, since the ritualist uses many area-control tactics, with new skill types and mechanics, in an interesting thematic package it'd likely get great feedback. The millionth "I want a martial artist who can punch through armour" thread will get jeers.

So - if you've got an idea, great - develop it into something worth posting. A "Dark Knight" is just a W/N unless you have developed a whole new mechanic for it, and it has a different playstyle. Even the assassin is a bit iffy, but with the hexing/enchanting/shadow step stuff they've managed to differentiate it enough from a warrior that I don't fnid it too bad. I was really worried it'd essentially be a R/W - stances, weak armour but lots of evasion and concentrationg on high attack speed while using more energy-based attacks.

I agree that we shouldn't be rude, but it's somewhat pointless to suggest a barbarian or brawler, or shapeshifter, or any of these classes. Remenmber that the people coming up with the game read the same books you did, and played the same games. It's not like they don't have a D&D manual around, or that they don't know about Diablo 2 or WoW. These are industry experts, and unless you can back your idea up a bit it's not worth suggesting it.

That's my view. If you spit out a 4 page suggestion which basically reads as a class from WoW you've wasted my time, your time, the readers of the board's time and the developer's time. We're all aware of these games. You aren't bringing anything new to the table. If you come up with a neat idea that is feasible in game, great!

Tiny flaw in your arguement. The application of even an overused class to a new set of boundries/criteria still constitutes creativity and deserves a place on the board. If you still consider it a useless thread, don't bother with it, then you won't have wasted your time.

Most of the "good" ideas don't come around till the 2-5th concept class. You have to mull through the generic ideas to get the gears working.

benmanhaha · Apr 24, 2006, 09:53 PM // 21:53

Thanks Nevin. It seems to me alot of people around here have just been shooting down ideas in general, not just Concept Classes. I think if you have nothing constructive to say, then just don't say it.

PicardSunstar · Apr 24, 2006, 10:26 PM // 22:26

so people like me can just say 5 sentances of flame?

heres 5 sentances:

"wow this is probably the worst idea ever. why do you think this would work? god you are such a noob. anet will never take your class suggestion. please dont waste space on the internet for such bad ideas?"

just a thought

Hella Good · Apr 24, 2006, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Some of the concept classes I see here are plain ridiculous or other game rip-offs. Not to mention it's not like the dev team will actually use these concepts. This forum simply expands on lore and, don't get me wrong, I think this is wonderful, but the actual practical usefulness of it is limited. So, I hear you there when you say people should really ask themselves some basic questions be4 posting these concept classes and I support the idea, I just don't think it's going to yield any better results gamewise.

Undivine · Apr 24, 2006, 11:33 PM // 23:33

I honestly don't mind if the class being suggested has a basis in some other source, so long as it brings something tactically and thematically unique to the table, as Epinephrine said. In fact, I think a class has more credibility if it has some basis in something we recognize.

The Ritualist is essentially a shaman. I absolutely love the way he casts spells, as they all suggest this theme. I like familiarity. If it's completely made up with no borrowed inspiration from history then it just seems like a cheesy comic book character to me. And if it completely doesn't fit the theme of Guild Wars, it's all the cheesier. And let's double the cheese when the class is clearly overpowered, as so many people love to go crazy with the power without thought of actual balance.

I'm sorry, but the very thing I don't like about many of the class suggestions is the cheese. I can try to express why it's a poor idea politely by listing those cheese factors, but after so many suggestions it's not like people listen to that "constructive" criticism. If it's really constructive then how come it isn't contructing? How come the cheese keeps flowing when people have been told time and time again what the cheese is and why it should stop? After a while, it's no wonder people post those short, disgruntled replies.

And perhaps they read the concept classes because they hope to find something interesting, only to be hopelessly disappointed once again. I don't buy the "you can just not read it" arguement.

Although, I guess I'm playing devil's advocate, since I don't post in those cheese-ridden threads anyway. Personally, I kind of doubt anything will come of class suggestions, good or bad.

Ken Dei · Apr 25, 2006, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Fair enough but the:

"You don't have to say anything", or the
"You can stop reading if you don't like it" arguments still apply.