Curse

Magus · Jun 05, 2005, 04:58 PM // 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

The game hasn't reached requiring "best builds" yet but it's getting close. Tell me how many W/Mo do you see in a given day? Why do you think that is, it's because theres the impression out there that W/Mo is the best way to do a tank. The "best build" mentality is already starting friend, like it or not. It extends past W/Mo, certain builds are much more common then others (such as E/Mo). This is because people think those builds better then others or we'd see a more varied set of builds. Praise the people who don't follow the common and make the offbeat builds like N/Me or W/Me or hell even W/R.

Finally strategies like "knock lock" need to be fixed, because when you get down to it there not really strategies there exploits. Your twinking your character to be able to take unfair advantage of a game mechanic. Don't go telling me knock lock is perfectly fair, I've been knock locked it's down right stupid. Any effect you can't counter is obviously broken and needs to be disabled, now Im not against knock down. It's a good way to halt a spell or skill but complete lock down is basically breaking the mechanic. You may like it but the guy on the recieving end sure doesnt, really in a game both parties should be having fun and no being locked down is not fun.

Again, W/Mo's are the most common because they are the easiest to play, and not the most powerful. Also, E/Mo's are not the most common elementalists. Having played an E/* (only secondary I haven't used is warrior) through the entire game, I wouldn't even say that they're the easiest to play, unlike W/Mo's.

Knock-locking itself is not the use of a hammer. Hammers are better than swords and axes because they provide quick and easy group control. Yes, knock-locking sucks when you're the target, but it is a perfectly viable strategy, and certainly not an uncounter-able one. I can easily prevent knock-locks with my R/Me. If you want to stop a knock-lock that has already begun, get an elementalist to AoE them.

Sorry to go off topic, but about two-handed swords, I seriously doubt that they will be implemented for current warriors. Actually, I would rather see them with a new profession in an expansion when they can have their own set of quality skills and properties, rather than just shoved in currently for warriors.

DarrenJasper · Jun 05, 2005, 05:03 PM // 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

First of EQ is total junk

Hehe, true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

Also two-handed swords doing more damage then axes would not invalidate axes, why? Well sir I'll tell you! Even though I already did but obviously your too narrow minded to see it in the text (hey you insult me Ill insult you). As it stands with the sword skills and axe skills as they are, a two-handed sword doing say 15-35 damage will only out damage axes in basic attacks. The axe skills still have greater potential for high damage then any sword skill, now the two-handed sword using sword skills will come pretty damn close (some will probably surpase axe, like final thrust but only when an enemy is less then 50% hp).

Right. So you really expect people to take axe when they could all the awesome utility skills of sword for only 3 or 4 damage less? Furthermore, basic attacks are your bread and butter, you're not popping out skills with every hit. The way you're proposing it, swords will still outdamage axes in the long run, in addition to retaining their superior utility skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

Now for another reason why you will still go axe if two-handed swords were implemented; utility items (the same reason you'd still go one handed sword). For the ability to gain extra armor and effects from a nice shield or focus item. The only real way two-handed swords would be unbalanced (or two-handed axes) is that if Anet gave them focus abilities, like say a zweihander having a +5 energy effect on it. Then sir yes they'd be broken, but as it stands two-haned variations of swords or even axes could be implemented without hurting the game's overall balance aslong as their damage rates were kept within scope.

Shields are not as useful as everyone thinks, a smart teams knows to flank shieldbearers. Focus items? Well, maybe. But to this day I've truly never seen a warrior carrying a focus item in the offhand... Maybe I spend too much time in Tombs.

As it is I'd be amazed if warriors passed over superior damage, snares, and bleeds for a nice shield... Especially since in PvP there is no point in building yourself into a tank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

Like you said more options will utterly ruin things if not balanced, I never suggested adding anything without balancing it. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't assume I meant that. Assumption is the mother of all ****ups.

Well, you certainly have a frantic aversion to "over-complicating" things. Balance is complicated. Playing it simple and throwing in as many options as possible is a great way to wreck that balance, so excuse me if I'm a little wary of posts like "we need 2handers, 'nuff said".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

Now as for everything having it's niche being good game design, what the hell are you smoking? Forcing people into a niche is never a good thing, "oh you axes then your our damage dealer. You use hammers? Then go knock-lock [more on this in a second] the monk" No, just no! A player should never be forced into playing a specific role unless he wants to, but then of course it's not forced is it?

You still don't understand what a niche is. A niche is a role that is widely accepted by groups and makes you, as a specific build, desirable and effective. Healing monks have a "niche", everyone knows the importance of healing to a group and the effectiveness of a well-built monk. As it is, rangers don't really have much of a niche - their skills are not clear-cut and widely misunderstood, so they have a harder time finding groups and playing an effective role in them.

No one is ever "forced" into a niche, and I can't understand why you would take offense at a group telling an axe warrior to deal damage... What else are they going to do? If you have a monk with 8 slots of heals and most of your points in healing and divine favor, if a group asked you to heal would you scream "STOP FORCING ME INTO A NICHE!" Of course you wouldn't (I hope). That's the group role you chose when you rolled a healing monk.
Now, the nice thing about GW is that while builds generally have outlined niches, classes don't. A monk can still smite or protect and have a niche of their own, there is nothing that forces them to heal, like clerics or priests in other games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

The game hasn't reached requiring "best builds" yet but it's getting close. Tell me how many W/Mo do you see in a given day? Why do you think that is, it's because theres the impression out there that W/Mo is the best way to do a tank. The "best build" mentality is already starting friend, like it or not. It extends past W/Mo, certain builds are much more common then others (such as E/Mo). This is because people think those builds better then others or we'd see a more varied set of builds. Praise the people who don't follow the common and make the offbeat builds like N/Me or W/Me or hell even W/R.

Okay, I've bolded all the parts of this that you need to pay attention to. Just because people think they have found the "best build" with a W/Mo is a very far cry from actually having one. The idea of W/Mo as an invincible tank may be prevalent among a lot of new people to the game or the PvE community, but any PvP group worth its salt could reduce a W/Mo to a smoldering heap with ease. That's not a "best build", it's just the illusion of one. You will probably always have to deal with that illusion, but it is very different from the actual thing.

If you think we're approaching the point where uneducated PUGs will start requiring you to be a W/Mo or an E/Mo... Well, maybe. I don't really care about them, and why should you? A smart PvP guild knows the importance of uncommon combinations just like you outlined. They don't need to be buffed to compete with the flavor of the month, they're fine as they are, just most people don't have the patience to look.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

Finally strategies like "knock lock" need to be fixed, because when you get down to it there not really strategies there exploits. Your twinking your character to be able to take unfair advantage of a game mechanic. Don't go telling me knock lock is perfectly fair, I've been knock locked it's down right stupid. Any effect you can't counter is obviously broken and needs to be disabled, now Im not against knock down. It's a good way to halt a spell or skill but complete lock down is basically breaking the mechanic. You may like it but the guy on the recieving end sure doesnt, really in a game both parties should be having fun and no being locked down is not fun.

This is a different discussion entirely, and I encourage you to give it a separate thread if you feel so strongly. You want my opinion? It's hardly an exploit, and it has plenty of counters that I guess you just haven't discovered. Slap Aegis or Guardian on yourself and see how well you get knock-locked. Slap a blind on the warrior and see how well he knock-locks you. Can't do that because you're too busy getting knock-locked? Guess what, that's what your team is there for. Every strategy has an effective counter - the mistake most people make is feeling like they should be enabled to counter everything by themselves, when they should be relying on their teammates to save their ass.

Apophis Jaan · Jun 05, 2005, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

Again, W/Mo's are the most common because they are the easiest to play, and not the most powerful. Also, E/Mo's are not the most common elementalists. Having played an E/* (only secondary I haven't used is warrior) through the entire game, I wouldn't even say that they're the easiest to play, unlike W/Mo's.

Knock-locking itself is not the use of a hammer. Hammers are better than swords and axes because they provide quick and easy group control. Yes, knock-locking sucks when you're the target, but it is a perfectly viable strategy, and certainly not an uncounter-able one. I can easily prevent knock-locks with my R/Me. If you want to stop a knock-lock that has already begun, get an elementalist to AoE them.

I'd have to disagree on that one, 8/10 Elementalists Ive seen have been subbed Monk. As for knock locking being viable, I disagree. Any strategy that puts another person into nigh infinite lockdown is obviously broken, it like infinity combos in Magic the Gathering. Your breaking the games mechanics for your personal gain. Yes you can stop it with an AoE but that doesnt give the target a way to stop it, also your assuming the team has an elementalist on their side. Requiring a specific proffession to halt the strategy just furthers my point, that it's broken. If your lucky your team will kill the offending locker, but they'll most likely be busy with his team.

Magus · Jun 05, 2005, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

I'd have to disagree on that one, 8/10 Elementalists Ive seen have been subbed Monk. As for knock locking being viable, I disagree. Any strategy that puts another person into nigh infinite lockdown is obviously broken, it like infinity combos in Magic the Gathering. Your breaking the games mechanics for your personal gain. Yes you can stop it with an AoE but that doesnt give the target a way to stop it, also your assuming the team has an elementalist on their side. Requiring a specific proffession to halt the strategy just furthers my point, that it's broken. If your lucky your team will kill the offending locker, but they'll most likely be busy with his team.

I'm not sure about PvE areas, but I've beaten the game with 2 characters and have not noticed any obvious abundance of E/Mo's (unlike W/Mo's.) I spend the majority of my time in the tombs, and I definitely don't see any excess of E/Mo's there.

About the knock-locking, I was merely emphasizing its easy preventability. Prevention is strategy. It requires you to watch and be able to predict what your opponent is doing, and act accordingly. For example, in Starcraft, a lot of people say the 12 fully upgraded carrier "rush" is cheap, but it's very easy to prevent by simply attacking the enemy base before they finish, and both require strategy to execute. Also, knock-locks are are very possible to stop once they have been initiated as well, although much more difficult by the target.

AoE is the easiest and most obvious way to stop them, but there are a number of other ways to stop them. Also, mesmers (and probably more professions) can AoE too, so stopping a knock-lock via AoE is not limited to just one profession. I don't see the use of a few professions to do this as broken, either. In order to heal, you need either a monk or necromancer, however no one argues about healing being broken. Guild Wars is about teamwork, not about individual "dueling." Any even remotely skilled team will break one of their teammates out of a knocklock (of course, unless that teammate wasn't worth their time.)

P.S. This is going to be my last post about this issue. I don't see how this has anything to do with two-handed swords anymore.

Rieselle · Jun 05, 2005, 06:13 PM // 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis Jaan

If you read my posts you'd see my first suggestion was to make two handed swords use the sword skills. Now I thought people were smart enough to assume that a two-handed sword would be much slower then a one handed sword. After all in real life a two-haned sword is much heavier and thus harder to swing then a one handed sword, I figured you people have at least a small idea of what realism is.

If you read *my* post you'll see that the key point was to make the 2H swords multi-hitting. The slower speed is just the tradeoff. Get over yourself, mate.

And realism? This from someone who made a post asking for taunt/provoke skills.

Rhombus · Jun 05, 2005, 06:44 PM // 18:44

somebody said there should be one handed hammers, and im too lazy to read everything to check if there has been a reply to that, so sorry if i am duplicating posts: 1 handed hammers would be completely useless. Hammers are all about they weigh. 1 handed hammers would have to be a lot lighter than 2 handed hammers, since they have to carried by half the amount of armstrength. This would deal close to no damage at all, only being usefull to work on the pavement (with a rubber hammer of course)

kingnothin · Jun 05, 2005, 07:18 PM // 19:18

all statistics and damage modifiers aside.........big 2 handed swords just look cool, thats why we need them, and what about a dual wield ability for the warrior...that would be neat to.

eA-Zaku · Jun 05, 2005, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Quote:

If you read *my* post you'll see that the key point was to make the 2H swords multi-hitting. The slower speed is just the tradeoff. Get over yourself, mate.

Hundred Blades

Axelia · Jun 05, 2005, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhombus

somebody said there should be one handed hammers, and im too lazy to read everything to check if there has been a reply to that, so sorry if i am duplicating posts: 1 handed hammers would be completely useless. Hammers are all about they weigh. 1 handed hammers would have to be a lot lighter than 2 handed hammers, since they have to carried by half the amount of armstrength. This would deal close to no damage at all, only being usefull to work on the pavement (with a rubber hammer of course)

I said there exist 1h hammers, 2h Swords and 2h axes in RPGs. There is none in GW. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh and if there was a one hand hammer and the attack speed was less than any weapon they would do just as much DPS.

Chronos the Defiler · Jun 05, 2005, 10:24 PM // 22:24

i think the pure dps is stupid too though...it should do damage in coordination to the combo animation, when it looks like you hit the enemy, it SHOULD hit the enemy.

1h hammers, 2h swords, 2h axes would be a great addition, i have been trying to push it for a while now...one addition i try to put into my suggestion is that 2h weapons should be able to hit multiple enemies directly in front of you, up to 4 or so in a single swing, and it would randomize while you attack.

and as for the combo thing i was talking about...make it into sombo strikes...a certain amount of quick hitst, then a cooldown period. for example a two-handed weapon would have 3 strikes in its combo then a slight cooldown then 3 strikes again...and 1 handed would have 5 or more strikes (since they do less damage and hit less enemies)

Apophis Jaan · Jun 06, 2005, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rieselle

If you read *my* post you'll see that the key point was to make the 2H swords multi-hitting. The slower speed is just the tradeoff. Get over yourself, mate.

And realism? This from someone who made a post asking for taunt/provoke skills.

I read your post, I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not really an arrogant person. I just didnt comment on the fact that you said they should be sweeping. Frankly I think thats a pretty good idea, within reason of course. Could always add a sweep skill ala axe sweep (I think thats what its called) to hit more enemies. But then thats taking away from axes.

Darren well I agree that things need to be balanced, and that any new weapon additions need to be balanced. But I dont think it's as complicated as you make it out be. In my experience, common sense is usually a good way to balance things out. Its really only when you make too much of the little details that things get out of hand, which is usually Blizzard's RTSs and RPGs usually end up being totally unbalanced (Diablo 2 specifically for 2 whole versions it was pretty bad, 1.10 finally fixed most of the issues though but I digress) and usually they end up having specific strategies dominate.

About Niches I think were really on the same page, just that maybe I do have the wording wrong. The people aren't literally forcing people into the roles, the community is. By having specific builds be more common, people get the idea that these are the "best" builds since so many people play em. Thus they feel forced into the build or niche. They think that off beat builds arent any good since you never see em, so they are less likely to play a W/Me for example for fear of not being able to compete, or get into a group because of percieved uselessness. Though when you create a character you probably have a role in mind, so most people are probably not affected by the best build mentailty. Let's hope it never gets that way, Ive played some MMOs where it's so bad that you cant get a group if your not of the percieved good build for a given niche (such as Ninja having to sub Warrior in FFXI just to get a party, people only accept ninja as a blink tank, nothing more). Granted a warrior only really hurts things, I mean he is the fighter class so really all the niches of the warrior revolves around dealing hurt. I still think a tank as some use in PvP though, Im able to stay alive awhile using Gladiator's Defense. Usually enough time for the team to kill the offending opponents.

Finally about Warriors using focus items, well I use one. I play a Warrior/Necro and I find that 20 energy just doesnt cut it. But yeah I'm a rare breed.