Curse

actionjack · Jan 15, 2007, 08:08 AM // 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

This is a fantasy game, that means the world opperates differently than reality, but anyone who understands suspension of disbelief knows that even in a fantasy rules apply, just different ones, that is why games like Final Fantasy are soooo popular, because of their ability to come up with realistic fantasy. There is a difference between fantasy and fake. The game isn't going to be totally real, in real life people don't get hit and survive, they avoid attacks. But the envelope is already pushed, Warrior already wears unnaturally heavy armor, and wields unnaturally heavy weapons wile using rather large shields. Your idea wants even more armor and a 2 handed shield as a weapon.

Sorry to be a bit out of the topic.. but something here really caught my eye...

Final Fantasy as "realistic fantasy"... Knowing that sever final fantasy game have your character, or enemy using GUNS, who shoot at you and not kill you, only doing points of damage...

Now, that is nothing to say against FF, but more to do with a argurement with BK about possible use of a Gun or Musket type of weapon in GW, which make something sound contradicting....

But I am sure he just mean the earlier FF games.. which are somewhat more medevil... that that would still hold true. Well.. back to the topic now.

System_Crush · Jan 15, 2007, 09:56 AM // 09:56

Well, theres this one case a fantasy tale top game(more freedom there) where I got to create a guy that had a shield with balls under it which worked like any direction weels, allowing him to take a running start and use it as a skatebord/lieing bord or use ity as a thing to have the enemy slip on.
Because of the constant swiching of positons he had to do, and the dieculty of roling around on a uneven battle field he had to use 2 hands, I however feel that such athing could never be implemented in GW as it is not pseudo futuristic or acceptant to severe handicaps when in desert or water/tar for a certain class, but a boost when in city or jade sea.

As fo that if you want a 2 handed shield make it a 2 handed battering ram with a shield/plate at the front that can be used to block.

But blocking(and evading) should still be a skill only, preferbly a stance or enchantment as those are removable.
Because it is still a powerfull effect, conditional attacks are just severely hampered by it, if the "can't be blocked or evaded" attacks are the only ones that will stand a chance against this class then its broken, any class should be suseptible to both pressure and spiking, a spepecific way to kill it within or around those tactics may anly be a better way not a only way.
And the class it's defence agianst either spiking or pressure should be dependent on its skills.

Just make a stance that recharges just a little longer than it lasts, and cost only 5 energy that way you could have good blocking up pretty much all the time.

Also this class straight off is a bad tank, in PvE mobs attack the person with the lowest armor within their aggro bubble, unless they already have a target, wariors can increase their atractiveness by casting healing signet when going into battle, with 100 AL this class needs some severe AL debufs to draw aggro off the warior.

KiyoshiKyokai · Jan 15, 2007, 11:08 AM // 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjack

Sorry to be a bit out of the topic.. but something here really caught my eye...

Final Fantasy as "realistic fantasy"... Knowing that sever final fantasy game have your character, or enemy using GUNS, who shoot at you and not kill you, only doing points of damage...

Now, that is nothing to say against FF, but more to do with a argurement with BK about possible use of a Gun or Musket type of weapon in GW, which make something sound contradicting....

But I am sure he just mean the earlier FF games.. which are somewhat more medevil... that that would still hold true. Well.. back to the topic now.

Arguing with BK is a lost cause. Please don't mention him or his posts anymore. I made the mistake of taking the flamebait before, but after reading this post, I became a bit wiser about replying to him: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s....php?t=3004830

That said, I sppreciate your defense, however: historics, comparison to FF, DnD, or any other game, aren't really the point of this thread (unless they are to draw out new ideas for the class). I'm more interested in hearing about the balance of the class, how it does/doesn't work with other classes, and how it can be improved to fit better into GW. Whether it is viable or not isn't the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by System_Crush

Also this class straight off is a bad tank, in PvE mobs attack the person with the lowest armor within their aggro bubble, unless they already have a target, wariors can increase their atractiveness by casting healing signet when going into battle, with 100 AL this class needs some severe AL debufs to draw aggro off the warior.

I wasn't aware of that. However, I've never heard of this phenomenon before. If that's the case, I will have to make a few adjustments. Can you give a reference or a source to verify it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by System_Crush

As fo that if you want a 2 handed shield make it a 2 handed battering ram with a shield/plate at the front that can be used to block.

Do you have a picture/sketch of something like this? Hearing about it sounds interesting, but I don't think it's beating gauntlets for my current weapon shift of choice.

draxynnic · Jan 16, 2007, 05:19 AM // 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiyoshiKyokai

Ok ok ok, I feel the shield hate. Let's talk about fixing it.

However, if the shield were one-handed (assuming it stays a weapon) what kind of offhand would they be wielding? I kind of like Dahl's dual shield's idea, which would, as some people suggested, raise their effectiveness over one shield for both attack and defense (but gives me the image of a boxer with metal gloves... maybe gauntlets would be even better?)

Any suggestions?

Hrrmn. The closest historical analogue to a warrior of this type would probably be in phalanx fighting, which usually involved spears and/or stabbing swords. The latter would be likely to cause confusion with the Warrior, so I'd go with a stabbing spear. Then you have the problem with distinguishing with the Paragon's throwing spear, but that's not quite so close an analogue. *shrug*

Quote:

Like Oren said, it's all about holding territory. The goal of an armiger is to strengthen a group's tactical position while holding territory, and also to tank through enemy lines and take the heat off of others. As for casters, they can't really move much anyway, at least not when casting, so presumably they'll spend alot of time standing still. Movement, like you mentioned is a problem, but easily overcome with skills like Dash, "Charge!", or the above Rook's Move.

Actually, while casters can't move while casting, they are expected to move a LOT when not casting, if they're being harassed by enemy melee - unless they can significantly buff up their own defense or one of their allies can quickly neutralise the threat.

Quote:

There are always classes that are going to be better at certain missions than others, so I don't think that their weakness in a few PvE missions or a small number of PvP maps are terribly crippling. Spirit ritualists are also far better at holding than mobile fighting, as are minion masters, but this hardly makes them dead weight.

The problem is, each of those builds are able to hightail it when they need to. A MM may end up needing to rebuild their swarm and a spirit Ritualist may need to spend the start of a new fight laying new spirits - but in a mission where time is of the essence, they're not going to hold you up. Heck, in a mission where success depends on disengaging from a fight that's going to hold up up longer than you can afford, the spirits or minions left behind can actually help by distracting the enemy as you escape.

Furthermore, both professions have other options. A Necromancer showing up to a MM-unfriendly mission can switch to Blood and/or Curses instead. A Ritualist showing up to a mission that requires mobility can trade out the multiple-spirit-laying and just work on a couple of fast-laying, (relatively) quick-recharge spirits they can key other skills off - or even abandon spirits entirely.

The Armiger, in it's present form, seems much more specialised. There isn't much it does do well apart from hold ground, and in any mission requiring mobility at all, it's going to need Rook's Move just to keep up. Furthermore, I still question just how good it really is at holding ground - It seems that it essentially does this in two ways. The first is simply by bodyblocking (which relies on cooperative terrain), the second by creating a 'safe zone' for nearby allies - although you will need to keep in mind that sometimes you will still want to be able to scatter.

Quote:

I was thinking about the Assassin's critical strikes (+1% critical chance) when I made this ability, but perhaps it does lack some balance, when you put it in that light. My other thoughts were "For each rank of vigilance you have +1 armor" or "For each 2 ranks of Vigilance you have -1 base damage reduction".

Either of those sound more interesting to anyone?

Each of those could work - the numbers may need tweaking, but neither mechanic seems innately unbalanced. Another option could be something like "For each rank of Vigilance you have an x% chance of y% damage reduction" (a mechanic that can lead to similar protection on average against most attacks than base damage reduction, but has less effect on multiple weak attacks).

Incidentally, the knight-fighter analogy is a bad one, although not for the reason BK gave. The knight, while more defensively-oriented than the fighter, is hardly guaranteed to have heavier armour than the fighter. In fact, one could argue that incredibly heavy armour is easier for certain builds of fighter to attain - the fighter has the feats that can be spent on heavy armour proficiency and heavy armour optimisation, while the knight's class features, up until level 8 or so, actual encourage wearing medium armour. The difference isn't in armour worn but in fighting style - few fighters can match a knight's techniques in protecting allies.

System_Crush · Jan 16, 2007, 09:59 AM // 09:59

Quote:

I wasn't aware of that. However, I've never heard of this phenomenon before. If that's the case, I will have to make a few adjustments. Can you give a reference or a source to verify it?

the art of tanking I link to this so often I should find a way to hotlink it, dont think the guru forum has a option for that though.

Quote:

Do you have a picture/sketch of something like this? Hearing about it sounds interesting, but I don't think it's beating gauntlets for my current weapon shift of choice.

I know its a sh*tty picture, but its kinda hard to find, I was hoping to find one of them modern riot rams they use in prison riots(when there is a baricade of furniture and people in a halway, where they can't get to with the riot truck), but was unable too.
The immage is sort of silly as that may people pusing against a riot ram would generally push it away easely, the idea is giving them a good heve ho to knock them down before they can start pusing, I gues in GW as you have no intrest in keeping opponets allive you could put spikes on the front as well.

Generally its used by 3 cops that take a running start, while protected by the broad part from flying rocks and bottles as they can't use their riot shields.
when they are not in a corridor(which is where it is usually used in RL) theres a few riot police along side with their shields protecting the guys carring the ram.
Also there should be a narrow hole in the plate to see through.

When used correctly they knock down over, a baricade of things on the people behind it, allowing the riot police to barge through without putting them selves in danger climbing over a barricade inside a buidling.

In GW you could raplace the 3 Guys by 1 guy, and it would still look realistic if he takes a running start, and knocks down 3 foes at a time and smashed people with the heavy ram.

MoonlitNightmare · Jan 21, 2007, 10:25 PM // 22:25

a couple random thoughts.

the phalanx idea is a neat one, but that along with the police ram idea both incorporate a formation to make the concept work. that's the inherent flaw of a spear/shield combination as an infantry weapon.

as far as the "shield is a weapon" goes, yes, it's always been used in an offensive-oriented way to both bash and as highland warriors will tell you: to hide their dirk. highland warriors would strap their shields onto the forearm, and hold a dirk in their hand ... a common tactic was to use the dirk to stab at someone's gut when swords/shields were locked, or after knocking a sword aside with the shield.

if you want a two handed weapon that acts "like" a shield, your best bet is a quarterstaff. a staff has been used in many cultures beacuse of its defensive capabilities ... infact there's a legend that the bodyguard of the chinese emperor was a staff-wielding warrior, and when it was broken in battle he made a new weapon linking the three segments with chain, although i'm blanking on the name of the weapon. three segment staff, maybe? not sure.

on an unrelated note i thought of this while reading over the changes to the ritualist ... a ritualist would be a very useful character: if everything always came to it or they were able to stand in one spot long enough. then i remembered this shield oriented class thread ( a class idea i am quite keen on myself ). so my suggestion is: maybe you could incorporate some skills both to your class suggestion, and some ritualist spells, that compliment eachother ... that would take advantage of the ritualists spirits and the shared flaw of both classes: standing in one spot.

just a thought.

draxynnic · Jan 22, 2007, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonlitNightmare

the phalanx idea is a neat one, but that along with the police ram idea both incorporate a formation to make the concept work. that's the inherent flaw of a spear/shield combination as an infantry weapon.

Aye. Historically, tactics like that were normally used in formations - very nasty as long as the formation holds, but they do rely on the forest of spearpoints for their effectiveness. If a unit of more independant infantry like swordsmen or halberdiers manage to get around the spear points and disrupt the formation, it could get very messy...

Quote:

as far as the "shield is a weapon" goes, yes, it's always been used in an offensive-oriented way to both bash and as highland warriors will tell you: to hide their dirk. highland warriors would strap their shields onto the forearm, and hold a dirk in their hand ... a common tactic was to use the dirk to stab at someone's gut when swords/shields were locked, or after knocking a sword aside with the shield.

All of these are conventional one-handed shields, though. In fact, the technique of hiding the dirk probably requires a relatively light shield that can be held up by the straps alone.

Quote:

if you want a two handed weapon that acts "like" a shield, your best bet is a quarterstaff. a staff has been used in many cultures beacuse of its defensive capabilities ... infact there's a legend that the bodyguard of the chinese emperor was a staff-wielding warrior, and when it was broken in battle he made a new weapon linking the three segments with chain, although i'm blanking on the name of the weapon. three segment staff, maybe? not sure.

I presume you're referring to this? Don't think I've heard that origin story, though - seems a bit strange that it was apparantly easier to chain the pieces together than to grab a spear and cut it down to suit until it could be replaced with a purpose-made replacement. Must have been a symbol of office or have some other symbolic value that made it worth the effort of chaining the pieces together and learning to fight with the result.

MoonlitNightmare · Jan 22, 2007, 10:17 AM // 10:17

true, the formation is easy to disrupt if flanked ... although during the period which phalanxes were at their peak, a halberd wasn't what would be doing it, but that's totally beside the point. by the time that weapon was in use spear formations were normally limited to a four-rank deep unit, down from the eight or more that the greeks used, and definetly reduced from the square formations employed by alexander the great.

and yes, the shield used by a highland warrior is light enough to be controled by straps alone, although i wouldn't necessarily call it a lightweight shield either. it is a round shield, made out of wooden planks and leather; although a far cry from a full tower shield. there's a pair of straps on the forearm, if i remember correctly, and a third across the palm used for controling and balance. the wrist is near the far edge of the shield so when rotated the hilt of the dirk is roughly even with the edge of the shield.

and yes, that's the three-segment staff i was refering to. i have three kingdoms sitting on my bookshelf, but i haven't gotten to the part mentioned on wiki that mentions the creation story. i either heard that creation story on a documentory, or read it whoknowswhere in a book ... and like all good creation stories, there's probably no way to confirm it now. but you never know, might be something recorded in a chinese historical text someplace.

bg_solidsnake · Jan 23, 2007, 08:01 AM // 08:01

Very nice idea but all that armor is just not balanced.Its like those lame E/D in AB who almost cant be killed and dont do much dmg.Plus since that guys is so slow everything would go slow missions will fail he wont agro the mobs coz of slow.He also wont do any good in PVP coz every 1 will ignore him kill every 1 then come back for him and slowly chop him down.

MacStar · Jan 23, 2007, 11:57 AM // 11:57

I quite like the idea of a defence class, and the work you've put into it must have taken you a long time. Keep up the good work

jon0592 · Jan 24, 2007, 11:53 PM // 23:53

I actually like this class, except for 1 tiny thing that could prevent me from playing it in whole: the -10% movement.

Do you know how annoying it will be in PvE or even AB when you're trying to keep up with your group?

Mr. G · Jan 29, 2007, 11:39 AM // 11:39

Hmmm...Few idea to lighten some of the complaints

-10% speed - Marching/Defenders Stance, A button somewhere (doesnt have to be big) that switches your stance

While marching - Normal speed 10% less armour
While defending - -10% speed, normal armour

Stances should not be able to be switches:
-While in combat
-for 5 seconds after changing equipment
-within 5 seconds of changing stance

The shields....When I first heared this class It made me think of a rook (not th bird!) dunno why, but one of those knight styles ones. I think the shield is a great weapon (bar the spiky bits, im sure a massive shield would do enough damage - and can you imagine cleaning that!).

Personaly I think this is a great class (and who care if its historicly right or god knows what else)

Stick with it id love to play it....be a little insane in PvP thou....hmmmm

Wertic · Jan 30, 2007, 08:14 PM // 20:14

I think its the worst idea ever...