Curse

Rikimaru · Aug 12, 2007, 06:52 PM // 18:52

-This game actually has a massive amount choices in the appearance of your character, between 10 classes, 3 chapters, and genders, all with a fair number of choices between them for hair, faces, and skin color.
The problem though is that, to look a certain way you want, you have to choose a certain class to go along with it, which massively limits these choices. For example, you cannot have a lean warrior, a healthy necromancer, or a strong assassin.

-The armor limited by your primary class also greatly hinders the type of play-style you can choose to have with your character, and while this part is not terrible, it might be unnecessary.

Here are my ideas on how to remedy these issues:

1) My first idea is that appearance could be unbound from your primary class, while armor remains bound to the appearance.
When you first choose to make a character, you choose an appearance type. The appearance types each correspond to a different class' appearance as it is now.
-Because these appearances have the same armor choices bound to them that the classes have now, you're also choosing a play-style. Here are a few examples of how it would be:
Soldier - Appearance: Warrior. Play-style from armor: High defense (focused on physical defense), low energy.
Performer - Appearance: Mesmer. Play-style from armor: Very low defense (many bonuses while activating spells/skills), high energy.
Rogue - Appearance: Assassin. Play-style from armor: lower-middle defense (bonuses while attacking, or against specific physical damage types), higher-middle energy.
Sickly - Appearance: Necromancer. Play-style from armor: low defense (varying benefits), high energy.

-Runes would still be bound to your primary class, but I'm not sure whether or not Insignias should be.
After choosing the appearance type, you would choose gender, then the details of the character's appearance, then the primary class.

2) With this idea, it would work in much the same way as my first idea, except that you would choose a secondary class during character creation, and choose your appearance from one of your two classes.
-Once you enter the game with the character, you wouldn't actually have the secondary class you chose yet, but rather than choosing which secondary class to gain from the starting quests, you would be forced to train the one you chose.
You could still change your secondary class freely later though, through the normal secondary class-swapping quests.
So you could choose to be a Warrior/Ranger, choose the appearance of a Ranger, then later switch to a Warrior/Ritualist while still looking like a Ranger.

-The reason for this second idea is that many people might have an issue with, for example, Warrior/Rangers running around with the elementalist's appearance, and with it the magic floaty burning gem thing on there foreheads, even though they can't use any magic.
With this idea, the explanation is that they would for example have been trained in the magical arts, but no longer practice them.

-To help balance, there could also be a kind of point system in place. Each class could have a point toward certain other classes. If both your primary and secondary class have a point toward the same other class, you cannot choose the appearance of that other class.
For example, an Assassin could have points toward Ritualists, Monks, and Elementalists. A Warrior could have points toward Elementalists, Mesmers, and Necromancers. So choosing either A/W or W/A as your classes would prevent you from choosing the appearance of an Elementalist.

-These ideas seem to me to be the easiest and most reasonable way to improve the appearance choices for characters, mostly body types.
There might obviously be some imbalances with certain class combinations using certain sets of armor, but hopefully people can help me iron out those issues here.
I'm expecting a couple people to argue that this would make it much harder to distinguish the types of characters in PvP, but I have a lot of experience in that, I can tell you that because of secondary classes, you're already forced to pay much more attention to the classes next to their name than to their appearance.

The Lurch · Aug 12, 2007, 09:11 PM // 21:11

While I'm all for looks not being tied to class, i dont like your idea on how choosing a body type chooses an armor type. Assassins use 70 armor. Warriors use 80. Monks use 60. Keep it that way.

Other then that, this is pretty good.

JeniM · Aug 12, 2007, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Personally i like it the way it is, each proffesion looks how it should to me

Rikimaru · Aug 12, 2007, 09:50 PM // 21:50

But if it wasn't done that way, people could be running around in full plate armor with 60 AR, or in nothing but tattoos with 100.

The reason for the suggestion is that having it the way it is basically reduces our appearance choices by 9/10, and if the armor wasn't still tied to the appearance, it'd require a completely unreasonable amount of work to shape every piece of armor in the game to all ten body types, for each gender.

I'm sure there's a lot of people that despise the fact that if you really want to play a certain way, you're forced into an extremely narrow selection for the appearance. As it is now, the choice to look a certain way comes with a massive restriction on the way you can play the character.

Div · Aug 12, 2007, 09:55 PM // 21:55

I think that's what Anet is getting at in GW2, not sure though....

But who needs GW2 when SC2 is coming out

Kool Pajamas · Aug 12, 2007, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Yea, GW2 won't have armor tied to profession. I don't think they can do it for GW1, or it would just be too much hassle at this point.

tenshi_strife · Aug 12, 2007, 11:05 PM // 23:05

yea and part of Gw1's tactics is being able to spot your enemies class just by the look so that you know what to prepare for. if monks could look like warriors that would mean trouble in ra or ta or ab *in ha you kinda use tab more then the screen, at least i do :P*

Aceracer · Sep 25, 2007, 07:35 PM // 19:35

this is a very intresting concept, i have remedied it im game (sort of) i have a A/Mo that is primarily a prot/healer. so i run around with the 10armor boost though i lose 5eng, this is remidied with wands and offhands. and i can jump in and out of danger to heal quickly (useful in DoA). now this isn't perfect cause i don't get devine favour but it fufils my want for a Assassin looking monk and still keeps my guildies alive. now i know this doesn't work for all changes (like warrior in monk apearance) but its an idea till we get GW2, also it gives you a new challenge instead of the normal Sin=high dmg, War=Tank..... and so on. if you like this idea give it a try it makes non-necro MM fun too(i won't say my class for that but its impressive to see)

Snow Bunny · Sep 25, 2007, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

I think that's what Anet is getting at in GW2, not sure though....

But who needs GW2 when SC2 is coming out

QFT.

I'd like this.
But...it's gonna be in GW2...

but...

SC2 ftw.

DarkGanni · Oct 10, 2007, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Good Idea but I think it's too late for this now.

lyra_song · Oct 11, 2007, 12:28 AM // 00:28

this is a classic and very free flowing idea.

But i think a classless system (no primaries) and you can change primary class, but once you change classes, you will no longer be able to wear that type of armor until you swap back.

A11Eur0 · Oct 11, 2007, 01:37 AM // 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurch

While I'm all for looks not being tied to class, i dont like your idea on how choosing a body type chooses an armor type. Assassins use 70 armor. Warriors use 80. Monks use 60. Keep it that way.

Other then that, this is pretty good.

Kinda agreed. Sure, you can give a warrior body an Elem class and 60 armor....but that Ele class will be wearing Warrior armor designs...giving warrior armor 60al just wouldn't make sense.

This would require designing new armor from all professions to fit on each current profession's bodytype. Female wouldn't be as difficult as many bodytypes are shared...but males have alot of variation. Necros, sins, monks and warriors are unique in their own. the rest have variations.

YOu can't even ask them to design new armors for the existing classes...what makes you think they'll design 100+ new sets or even just tweak them to fit the different bodytypes?

Crom The Pale · Oct 11, 2007, 03:08 AM // 03:08

I would like to see in GW2 a better means of character creation.

Rather than just changing hieght I would also like to adjust width and wieght.
You would still be limited in what armor you where based on class, or rather what level of armor you get depending on looks. ie: platemail vs Mesmer dress.

Having a war wearing ranger or necro armor really doesnt make much sence, but a tall thin war or a short fat monk, now that I could see.

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 11, 2007, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Hail Blizzard! StarCraft 2 looks to be awesome.

Oh, and what I'd really like is the ability to use ranger norn/ancient on my ritualist. Combined with black dye and tinted spectacles. Matrix FTW. Not going to happen of course, but I can dream.

Dean Harper · Oct 11, 2007, 04:14 AM // 04:14

meh, i dont really like the idea, i like having Memsers as Mesmers, Rangers as Rangers, Wars as Wars, etc.

Lykan · Oct 13, 2007, 12:45 PM // 12:45

Yea great idea right at the end of the games lifespan...