Curse

actionjack · Dec 04, 2005, 06:28 AM // 06:28

how come darkdragon99 is so passionate about it, I don't know... but try not to use any valguar words.

To almightytom, I understand your dislike to unrealistic stuff.. but it is a game we are talking about, and a game logic that should be applied. Take an RTS for example, did you ever see the peons build up a building from ground up with imaginary storage of material, and said to your self "this is impossible, I will never touch this game again!". If so, than you made your point.

There are already Engineer in GW, the one who man the catapults in mission 2 (I forgot the name), which the capapultes magically fix it self, and fire shots automatic shots that require no loading. So I guess if you can shoot fireballs, you could also build things magically as well. A war tank is not the modern day tank with a cannon on top, but it does sound better than a War Wagon. And yes, there are 5 seconds of casting/building time to make a wire wall.

I, however, agree it is very similar to WoW's Gadeteer. Feel free to comment in what would be added or change to make it more differnt and better.

almightytom · Dec 04, 2005, 06:31 AM // 06:31

i see what you are saying, it just seems like the engineer would be a little TOO advanced. if you were to just make a class that used crossbow and maybe some form of primitive explosive, and then add broken catapaults to different maps that only the engineer could fix, then i suppose it could work. the thought of just summoning a catapault or building a robot just seems a little crazy.

darkdragon99 · Dec 04, 2005, 06:33 AM // 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjack

how come darkdragon99 is so passionate about it, I don't know... but try not to use any valguar words.

i'm just in the mood to fight tonight and to tell the truth i'm passionate about everything i do

and i did try

so almightytom it makes sense just cause you've seen it befor is that right well than think of this if you didn't see it befor would it still make sense

Aenimus · Dec 04, 2005, 07:11 AM // 07:11

geez. assassin is not original enough and engineer is too original. there's no pleasing you people is there? i think this is another good (albeit, not as fantabulous as the alchemist) idea from actionjack. he's got a lot of creative talent.

/signed

Aenimus · Dec 04, 2005, 07:12 AM // 07:12

also, you might want to replace the word "robot" with something more like "automaton"

almightytom · Dec 04, 2005, 07:31 AM // 07:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdragon99

so almightytom it makes sense just cause you've seen it befor is that right well than think of this if you didn't see it befor would it still make sense

any chance you could explain that? cuz it didnt make any sense and you missed a couple e's.

Symeon · Dec 04, 2005, 08:53 AM // 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightytom

wow. you are a very angry person, arent you. fine. ill talk about more than the musket.
where should i start...
Seige weapons: lets see. he is just gonna wave his arms and a trebuchet is gonna drop out of the sky for him to use and decimate his enemies? that makes sense.
war tank: yeah ok. lets just summon a tank to the medival ages.
wire wall: because there is so much time to build a wall during a fight in guildwars
grenade: see war tank
rocket: see grenade
mine: see rocket
robot: need i say anything?

pretty sure i liked it when someone said "this isnt WoW"

Please. I hate it when people just start shouting at every single idea. If you'd been here longer you might know that when people make such huge ideas as this, it is regarded as polite not to just start pointing at every single thing like

[sarcasm] gun - yeah let's throw in some guns to games with staffs and wands and swords
war tank - no, tanks didn't exist then.
grenade - no
rocket - no
wire wall - how can you build wall in middle of battle [/sarcasm]

This is probably the common view of a person in Guild Wars that things like guns can't be put in.

I think by tanks and rockets and stuff actionjack was really unsure and probably meant they would be little small models rather than huge great things built in the middle of battle.
Yes, maybe the idea has it's flaws, but please don't start that 'guns, don't make me laugh' mode.

almightytom · Dec 04, 2005, 09:20 AM // 09:20

he may have meant little small models, but its kinda hard to have a little small model of a catapault or any of those other things and still have it work. i dont particularly care if im being polite or not, im just giving my opinion on what i think is a bad idea. i even suggested a way in which the build could be made to work. i quote myself to prove a point:

Quote:

i see what you are saying, it just seems like the engineer would be a little TOO advanced. if you were to just make a class that used crossbow and maybe some form of primitive explosive, and then add broken catapaults to different maps that only the engineer could fix, then i suppose it could work. the thought of just summoning a catapault or building a robot just seems a little crazy.

actionjack · Dec 04, 2005, 09:48 AM // 09:48

For the Siege weapons.. they will be man sizes.
Animation wise, will be similar to that of a RTS game (guy hammering something while its "parts" magically float together) Yes, it is not realistic, but still within reason of a game.

Muzzleloading Musket

M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle (LRSR)

can you guess which type of gun am I thinking of?

Sagius Truthbarron · Dec 04, 2005, 11:57 AM // 11:57

I have it!

Construction (class only): Able to make terrain changes to map, adding walls, ramps, pits, ect. The more construction skill you have the more successful you are at defusing traps, and your explosives have a lesser chance of being deactivated or spoted.

Explosives: Able to destroy constructed obsticle and set trap-like explosives that do not expire untill triggered or deactivated.

Defusion: Able to defuse explosives and set off traps from range.

Musketeering: Able to use single handed, or rifle firearms. These weapons have low accuracy but a high damage rate.

Woo!

darkdragon99 · Dec 04, 2005, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightytom

well, if we put aside the fact that necromancers in ANY game can raise the dead, and elementalists in ANY game can congure elements, and monks in ANY game can heal like mad, and rangers in ANY game have an affinity with nature, your argument makes sense. wait a minute, that means that your argument didnt make sense.
fantasy can only go so far. conjuring a catapault out of thin air is a little too much fantasy for a game like guildwars.
and when i used the term realistic, it was intended to point toward the guildwars version of realism.

ok read your post again than read mine

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdragon99

so almightytom it makes sense just cause you've seen it befor is that right well than think of this if you didn't see it befor would it still make sense

your hole argument on that was you see that in every game so if you didn't see it in every game would it still make sense everything had to be used a first time you know

Retribution X · Dec 04, 2005, 04:27 PM // 16:27

ur thinking of the M107 right? =D

benmanhaha · Dec 04, 2005, 04:31 PM // 16:31

I don't know what the big deal is here. Dwarven powder kegs = large grenades. You just shrink it down and you've got yourself a grenade. Now i agree the rocket launcher is probably out, but about the land mine, its basically a trap, i don't see what's so unreasonable about it.

To adress the wartank, I think it would be just fine to be able to build things like this. Now like jack said, this isnt a modern day tank, it would probably look like this.
http://www.ifelix.co.uk/games/images/img011/f10015.jpg<---- I googled war machine.
Now, with some very high requirements, such as materials and casting time, I think this would be achievable.

And finnally, why can't there be guns eh? Final Fantasy had guns. I don't know about WoW. But come on people. The dwarves are like, "Hmm, well we have tubes, and gun powder, and projectiles, well, no, it's impossible to put these three items together to make a projectile shooting thingy because it wouldn't be realistic." It is completely plausible for these people to have guns.
Give me one good reason why they couldn't have put 2 and 2 and 2 together to get guns. Huh? Huh? Thats what I thought.

actionjack · Dec 04, 2005, 04:45 PM // 16:45

War Tank... something more like this.. but with out the horses...
http://www.madponies.net/images/empire/wagon.b.jpg

Rockets.. not those sci-fi rocket lunchers
http://www.firework-displays.co.uk/I...sumorocket.jpg

Lots major fantasy games have guns, from FF to WoW to Warhammer. Of couse, you could also put a large gem on there, can said it is power by both blackpowder and magic! But of couse it is subject to each and our own opinions, so I won't force it on anyone. (as said, A.net will be the one doing that)

Evil Hypnotist · Dec 04, 2005, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by benmanhaha

It doesnt seem so far fetched that they could have gun powder now does it?

Hate to dump on all those totally opposed to firearms in GW but gunpowder is already in the game i.e. power keg stores in the shiverpeaks. If its done well then I think musket style weapons could be a nice alternative in fantasy RPGs and other games have done it before.

I always fancied the idea of a flintlock pistol wielding nobleman myself. With such a weapon you are going to have to nerf speed/recharge for the kind of power that would make it realistic. Limiting powder and shot could also be an option, making the character have to use an alternative weapon for periods of time and choose the best time to shoot, these kind of materials could be dropped as loot as well.

Either way, people are going to either love the idea or hate it. Having the option takes the game in a different direction and if you really cant stand the idea then just dont opt for that kind of character. At least there is a choice.

almightytom · Dec 06, 2005, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by benmanhaha

And finnally, why can't there be guns eh? Final Fantasy had guns. I don't know about WoW. But come on people. The dwarves are like, "Hmm, well we have tubes, and gun powder, and projectiles, well, no, it's impossible to put these three items together to make a projectile shooting thingy because it wouldn't be realistic." It is completely plausible for these people to have guns.
Give me one good reason why they couldn't have put 2 and 2 and 2 together to get guns. Huh? Huh? Thats what I thought.

well, first, there are no dwarves in guild wars. except the ones in the shiverpeaks, and they arent playable races. dwarves in any game have the tendency to stick to themselves and hate on generally everyone. ie: they dont get along with people. now, if the dwarves made guns, why would they share them with everyone that they dont like?
^note that the above is a completely hypothetical situation, and not to be taken as the start of an argument on dwarf relations.

anyway, my only problem with the whole gun thing is that the presence of gunpowder (dwarven kegs) does not imply that they have the ability to make guns. correct me if im mistaken, but im pretty sure gunspowder, tubes, and round bits of metal were around for hundreds of years before anyone figured out to put them together and kill people.

borkbork · Dec 06, 2005, 01:20 AM // 01:20

After all, the Charr nuked Ascalon with their giant crystal missles... I don't see anything wrong with bigger and more explosive projectile weapons.

/signed

I'd like to see some concept art for the engineer constumes!

actionjack · Dec 14, 2005, 05:14 AM // 05:14

I was reading on something, when I came to a interesting information about the gun/armor arguement that even I didn't know about before. So I will post it here to share with those who care..

Quote:

I was reading about the movie Excalibur.. when I came to this interesting note
"Incorrectly regarded as goofs: Full plate metal armor was not invented until about the year 1350, and not used in Europe until much later than that. Numerous such anachronisms (use of stirrups, weaponry) can be excused as being faithful to Malory's book, which followed the conventions of the time of making historical characters behave in a contemporary way"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/

which prompt me to look up a but futher about it in Wiki... which I got this..

Quote:

"Probably the most recognised style of armour in the world, associated with the knights of Late Medieval Europe, but continuing later through the 1500, & 1600s in all European countries. At first, while fire arms were relatively low velocity,the full suits of armor actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. Breast plates were in fact commonly shot as a test. The impact point would be encircled with ingraving to point it out. This was called the "proof" . It was not uncommon for a man in armour, mounted on a horse, to ride up closer to the enemy, in a tactical manuever called "The wheel", and discharge his hand-cannon or pistols right into the faces, or coverage gaps in the armour of the adversary at close range. Arrows, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any but the closest bullet. In effect, (and this has long been misunderstood), plate armour actually came to replace chain mail and limited plate armour because of the cannon and guns being used along with better racheting crossbows. Plate would stop all of these at a distance. Hence, guns and cavalry in plate armour were "threat and remedy" together on the battlefield for almost 400 years. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending musketeers without being easily killed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour#Plate_armour

Interesting isn't it?

Siren · Dec 14, 2005, 07:06 AM // 07:06

My thoughts are I don't know what to think. The original suggestion is so random and scattered that I'm having difficulty plucking out the good ideas from the bad. I'll just start at the top of the idea (conceptually, not at the top of the original post) and work my way down.

Okay, first off, I do like the idea of an Engineering class in the game. Like has been said previously, there are already Engineer-type NPCs (Fort Ranik's NPC, for example, whose name I also can't remember), and the dwarves damn near function as them, too. Because of the Engineers already in the game, I don't see anything wrong with having an actual Engineering profession in the game. I'm a nerd, so it'll probably give me something nerdy to do.

That said, the profession needs to be implemented correctly...and largely, I don't think the OP's suggestion in its current form, with its current ideas, is able to lay the framework for the professin to be implemented appropriately.

I think there are some ideas (rather, skills) that are brilliant.

The Explosive Expert tree, for example, has a lot of nice things going on.

I like the idea of grenades, although I don't think a grenade itself is appropriate, even within the hyperreality of GW...perhaps a different type of projectile explosive?

I think the explosive packs could be very useful. I like the idea of an Engineer running up and strapping a bomb on an opponent, or himself. Reminds me of Goblin Sappers from Warcraft, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Mines, while I think the name and modern connotations of the name aren't appropriate, are something that could be useful, as well. They could function like Ranger Traps would, but instead of causing Bleeding and Crippled, they would offer beefed up types of Flame Trap. Incidentally, I think ideas like Wire Fence are pretty lame, because if we're looking at the Engineer doing explosive things, barbed wire, in my opinion, is the complete antithesis of the goal.

Speaking of the wire fence thing, I find most of the Siege Expert...thing...to be completely absurd, because how would the thing function? Ignoring how bizarre and silly things would become if War Tanks just started appearing around people, I don't think the game itself could handle all of the objects popping up.

And from what I gather, the War Tank idea isn't just a non-visual effect. There would be an actual tank appear that the Engineer hops into and drives. How would the Engie get in and out? Is it just he's in while the thing is intact, and when it gets blown up, what happens? Does he just hop out at the last second, or does he become part of the rubble?

Either way, how could the game handle something like that?

Just consider an 8-player team, all using Engies, all using War Tanks. Hell, consider 8v8 in GvG (and forget using it in Tombs...8v8v8v8? Not a chance) and tell me anything in the Siege Expert tree is still doable.

And to touch back on the "riding" aspect...are we going to have to "mount" these War Tanks? They're going to be vehicles. I for one don't think we need vehicles of any type, honestly.

About the muskets. I'm really on the fence about this one. On one hand, I think it will be difficult to do muskets in such a way that doesn't skew the game to all hell, but at the same time, I don't think many of the counter-arguments regarding "game realism/immersion" are terribly cogent.

I suppose my main concern is just that the idea of a musket in GW makes no sense. I could not see an Engineer dealing damage side-by-side with a Ranger, hearing the thwwiiipppp! of the arrow, and then hearing a gunshot. It just doesn't gel. I have no problem with an Engie dealing damage with a ranged attack.

It's just that a musket--even archaic ones a la Arthurian history or Revolutionary war ones--will be a stretch to mesh with the existing GW environment. The Ranger and Engie standing next to each other, you see an arrow fly, then a huge cloud of smoke. I don't see how it would add much to the game, just like I don't see how a crossbow would make anything any better.

Replacing the musket with a crossbow doesn't make the Engie profession any more appealing; it just makes me long more for the true Marksman profession (Ranger) to have a one-handed, ranged weapon...like a crossbow.

And I think the fact that people really have to stretch to come up with "viable" alternatives to the initial weapon choice for Engie really says something about how well the class would mesh with the rest of GW: it really wouldn't.

So far, the only thing I really like about the Engie idea is the Demolitions/Explosives Expert. That's the only thing I see truly shining when it comes to gameplay.

Everything else is either useless or incidental in importance: Materials...no. Siege expert...no. Musket (or crossbow)...either needs serious re-consideration and revision or no. Gadget expert...not feeling that, either.

I don't even think that "Salvager" is a good idea for the primary attribute, too. You're an Engie because you like to blow **** up. That was the sole purpose for creating the Dwarven Demo squads and Goblin Sappers in Warcraft: the player wanted to blow something up. Hell, if my memory serves me correctly, the sound bytes of those two units were things like "Bombs are great!" "I love blowin things up!" "HAHAAHAHHAHA!!!"

Better primary attribute for Engie: Dexterity. With each level of Dexterity, the effectiveness, power, and speed with which you can set Bombs (and whatever the other two/three attribute lines would be) increase.

The other primary attributes pretty much boost what the primary profession focuses on. Monk and Divine Favor. Warrior and Strength. Ele and Energy Storage (because Ele spells are the only high energy spells in the game). Ranger and Expertise. And so on. Why should Engie be any different? Dexterity makes much more sense. Plus, the Engie is working with bombs. I think his hands should be as steady as possible.

I re-read the thread again, and I think Sagius' Defusion skill line is a solid idea. Since it wouldn't necessarily be affected by Dexterity, I think it would be worth the secondary profession. After all, since Mesmers are the only real counter to other Mesmers, and Necros are the only real counter to other Necros, I think it's appropriate that an Engie would be the only counter to an Engie.

You're in combat, an opposing Engie runs up and straps a bomb to your chest, you click the icon in the Effects Monitor, an Engie on your side runs up and defuses it. Sounds like fun, and wouldn't require dramatic changes for the existing professions.

So my final assessment boils down to the following:

Engineer profession: OK, but only with careful design
Engineer attributes: Dexterity (class only), Demolitions, Defusion, [and one or two others]
Materials gathering: NO
Siege activites: NO

actionjack · Dec 14, 2005, 09:01 AM // 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

My thoughts are I don't know what to think. The original suggestion is so random and scattered that I'm having difficulty plucking out the good ideas from the bad. I'll just start at the top of the idea (conceptually, not at the top of the original post) and work my way down.

Okay, first off, I do like the idea of an Engineering class in the game. Like has been said previously, there are already Engineer-type NPCs (Fort Ranik's NPC, for example, whose name I also can't remember), and the dwarves damn near function as them, too. Because of the Engineers already in the game, I don't see anything wrong with having an actual Engineering profession in the game. I'm a nerd, so it'll probably give me something nerdy to do.

That said, the profession needs to be implemented correctly...and largely, I don't think the OP's suggestion in its current form, with its current ideas, is able to lay the framework for the professin to be implemented appropriately.

I think there are some ideas (rather, skills) that are brilliant.

The Explosive Expert tree, for example, has a lot of nice things going on.

I like the idea of grenades, although I don't think a grenade itself is appropriate, even within the hyperreality of GW...perhaps a different type of projectile explosive?

I think the explosive packs could be very useful. I like the idea of an Engineer running up and strapping a bomb on an opponent, or himself. Reminds me of Goblin Sappers from Warcraft, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Mines, while I think the name and modern connotations of the name aren't appropriate, are something that could be useful, as well. They could function like Ranger Traps would, but instead of causing Bleeding and Crippled, they would offer beefed up types of Flame Trap. Incidentally, I think ideas like Wire Fence are pretty lame, because if we're looking at the Engineer doing explosive things, barbed wire, in my opinion, is the complete antithesis of the goal.

Speaking of the wire fence thing, I find most of the Siege Expert...thing...to be completely absurd, because how would the thing function? Ignoring how bizarre and silly things would become if War Tanks just started appearing around people, I don't think the game itself could handle all of the objects popping up.

And from what I gather, the War Tank idea isn't just a non-visual effect. There would be an actual tank appear that the Engineer hops into and drives. How would the Engie get in and out? Is it just he's in while the thing is intact, and when it gets blown up, what happens? Does he just hop out at the last second, or does he become part of the rubble?

Either way, how could the game handle something like that?

Just consider an 8-player team, all using Engies, all using War Tanks. Hell, consider 8v8 in GvG (and forget using it in Tombs...8v8v8v8? Not a chance) and tell me anything in the Siege Expert tree is still doable.

And to touch back on the "riding" aspect...are we going to have to "mount" these War Tanks? They're going to be vehicles. I for one don't think we need vehicles of any type, honestly.

About the muskets. I'm really on the fence about this one. On one hand, I think it will be difficult to do muskets in such a way that doesn't skew the game to all hell, but at the same time, I don't think many of the counter-arguments regarding "game realism/immersion" are terribly cogent.

I suppose my main concern is just that the idea of a musket in GW makes no sense. I could not see an Engineer dealing damage side-by-side with a Ranger, hearing the thwwiiipppp! of the arrow, and then hearing a gunshot. It just doesn't gel. I have no problem with an Engie dealing damage with a ranged attack.

It's just that a musket--even archaic ones a la Arthurian history or Revolutionary war ones--will be a stretch to mesh with the existing GW environment. The Ranger and Engie standing next to each other, you see an arrow fly, then a huge cloud of smoke. I don't see how it would add much to the game, just like I don't see how a crossbow would make anything any better.

Replacing the musket with a crossbow doesn't make the Engie profession any more appealing; it just makes me long more for the true Marksman profession (Ranger) to have a one-handed, ranged weapon...like a crossbow.

And I think the fact that people really have to stretch to come up with "viable" alternatives to the initial weapon choice for Engie really says something about how well the class would mesh with the rest of GW: it really wouldn't.

So far, the only thing I really like about the Engie idea is the Demolitions/Explosives Expert. That's the only thing I see truly shining when it comes to gameplay.

Everything else is either useless or incidental in importance: Materials...no. Siege expert...no. Musket (or crossbow)...either needs serious re-consideration and revision or no. Gadget expert...not feeling that, either.

I don't even think that "Salvager" is a good idea for the primary attribute, too. You're an Engie because you like to blow **** up. That was the sole purpose for creating the Dwarven Demo squads and Goblin Sappers in Warcraft: the player wanted to blow something up. Hell, if my memory serves me correctly, the sound bytes of those two units were things like "Bombs are great!" "I love blowin things up!" "HAHAAHAHHAHA!!!"

Better primary attribute for Engie: Dexterity. With each level of Dexterity, the effectiveness, power, and speed with which you can set Bombs (and whatever the other two/three attribute lines would be) increase.

The other primary attributes pretty much boost what the primary profession focuses on. Monk and Divine Favor. Warrior and Strength. Ele and Energy Storage (because Ele spells are the only high energy spells in the game). Ranger and Expertise. And so on. Why should Engie be any different? Dexterity makes much more sense. Plus, the Engie is working with bombs. I think his hands should be as steady as possible.

I re-read the thread again, and I think Sagius' Defusion skill line is a solid idea. Since it wouldn't necessarily be affected by Dexterity, I think it would be worth the secondary profession. After all, since Mesmers are the only real counter to other Mesmers, and Necros are the only real counter to other Necros, I think it's appropriate that an Engie would be the only counter to an Engie.

You're in combat, an opposing Engie runs up and straps a bomb to your chest, you click the icon in the Effects Monitor, an Engie on your side runs up and defuses it. Sounds like fun, and wouldn't require dramatic changes for the existing professions.

So my final assessment boils down to the following:

Engineer profession: OK, but only with careful design
Engineer attributes: Dexterity (class only), Demolitions, Defusion, [and one or two others]
Materials gathering: NO
Siege activites: NO

Thx for the very nice review.. lot better than some mindless flames...

now.. to adress your concern.
- on Explosion.. I really want to make it where it will have AoE effect that would also harm you or your teamate if they are in its range.... However, that would create to much team kill abuser.. so might need to just make it where it would hurt your self only. And don't let the name fool you, they are not modern day weaponary.

- on sige weaponaries... well.. those do need some blance. In theory, they are Engineer's "Nitch", in where they would build up heavy (and for most part, stationary or slow moving) defense and offense, of couse, material, or time, is thier weakness in that field. I see the animation being somewhat like a RTS, where a enginer would "hammer" while the pile of material/parts magically form it self into what ever they are building. (look almost more like summoning). When the weapon is destory by enemy, it would blow up, and knock back the engineer to the ground for few seconds. Or if it is duration, would simply crumble apart (it is held together by magical means, afterall). Well, if you face a Engineer team, you better A) bring your own Engineer, B) Rush them head on fast and hard c) run for cover till their duration is over.

- On Musket... read my post above for support on musket in historical time fame. Musket is differnt from Bows. (I should add one more thing to it... it does not have height bonus, but will only do 50% damage if target is out of its optimal distance) Musket/hand cannon should have slower firing rate, better damage, and shorter range. In skill, it is more chance base (to reflect its in accuracy) than rangers bow skills.

I guess you like a Bombardeer better... things that go KaBooom?

Also would like to hear your view on the concept of Materials, since its a very big part of Engineer concept. Any suggestion to further improve it is welcome