Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

xenryusho

Member
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Just watched the stream, good stuff. Great commentary and chat interaction and good quality video.

    1. thenebrosity

      thenebrosity

      Thanks xenry!! Hope to see you on again soon! :D

       

  2. I love things with the fantasy of the assassin, though very often they're not done very well. I feel like an assassin should work along side other characters if absolutely needed (a final offensive in a large scale battle for example) but they should not be particularly good at it. Rather, I love the idea of working alone and using my skills and mind to find solutions to problems outside of enter combat, kill or die. Stalker in W* is a good example of what they should not be. Stealth > Analyze Weakness > Impale > Stealth > Impale > Tactical Retreat > Impale > Stagger > Tether Mine > Phlebotomize > Pounce Away > Stealth > Pounce Back > Analyze Weakness > Impale. If you hit these buttons in this order, then 100% of the time you'd kill any non-tank enemy combatant in PvP. And I understand fully why people hated it. For the stalker, it was an annoying bloat of casts in something like a 10 second time period and if you messed up a single one there is a very fair chance that you didn't kill your target, instead you'd have to disengage and let natural healing take over. For the opponent there was no counter play, you couldn't reduce the damage with CDs before you were opened on because stealth, if you popped something big in between the first two casts the stalker could just not re-engage until they had all their CDs back up and your defensive would still be down. You're too phelbotomized to heal up before he came around and opened on you again. The only counterplay was to be a tank in which case the stalker would just never engage in the fight in the first place. I did not have fun playing stalker like this, there was no being clever for me. It was burst and kill or don't and disengage. I'm hoping assassin is done well, and becomes the kind of character that you either outsmart and counter, or lose with a grin on your face and think "That clever sob".
  3. In a combat role I believe an Assassin should be more than capable of eliminating a target one on one, an in addition be effective in temporarily disabling another target or two to accomplish this goal. Making the assassin outright weaker than most other characters, having to wait for them to be typing to win a 1v1 defeats the purpose honestly. The specialist part, so far as combat goes, I think should make it difficult for an assassin to perform in a brawl. When there are enough combatants an assassin should flounder, 4v4 fight? You can stun one guy but the other three turn around and floor you. 20v20 battle? As soon as you unstealth the enemy army will turn on you so fast you can't get an attack off. An assassin should be good at what they do (killing a high priority target, recon, infiltration, possibly theft, getting around someones defenses to sabotage or open the gates for a raiding force). They should have a toolkit that allows them to be clever and unpredictable with their actions, and having one alone with you should be your worst nightmare. What they shouldn't do, or be good at, is be a soldier. They're too squishy to be on the front lines, they're too melee-centric (or at least semi-inept in ranged combat) to sit back out of range like an archer. To me an assassin is the kind of character that comes across as a game changer, one that fufills the fantasy of espionage and murder. One of the worst things I can see happening with the assassin is them being a full on burst 'sink or swim' archtype. You open on someone from stealth, and it goes two ways, they die and you win the fight, they live and then kill you because you're ineffectual at prolonged combat. This is fun for pretty much no one. The opponent because they didn't have a chance to flee or outplay a poor assassin. And you because of bulky targets and gear scaling. If you need to kill someone who more than a clothie you've lost before the fight starts. If your mage target has top tier gear and you don't? Pretty much no chance whatsoever, despite the fact that you're a melee who's supposed to be adept at disabling and killing a single target. The counterplay against an assassin should be mental. Fear an assassination? Get a bodyguard or travel in a group. Don't want to be infiltrated / stolen from? Have guards with a high perception (or whatever winds up countering stealth). Think they're going to be tunneling into your base? Hollow out the ground underneath your keep and set up a sentry to keep watch. It's been pushed pretty heavily that the social order will be a huge part of the game, as such I'd like to see archtypes (assassin in particular) be designed with this in mind. Just some thoughts I had to better clarify how I feel assassins should operate with regards to combat situations.
  4. xenryusho

    Fae Vs. Elves

    I disagree with the analogy between a Fae and an Amazon. Amazons were typically portrayed as primitive and warriors, rather than the subtle rogues we've seen the Fae revealed as. This is largely in part due to the time that Amazons were believed to have lived as well as the sources which depicted them such as paintings on pots, statues, and carvings. The Fae seem to be more of a secretive and intelligent race, one that's kept in whispers of bars due to the pervasive nature of their profession. But at the same time modern (relative to the other races) and capable of engaging in trade and mercenary work. From what we've been told their social structure resembles more of a guild or secret organization churning out killers than a tribe in the jungles. Relative to the elves it seems like the Fae differ in several important ways. First being presence, where as an elf at a gathering might be keeping to themselves at their table a Fae wouldn't be invited in the first place; lurking in the shadows and fulfilling their contracts a Fae would feel naked without their blade and out of place in a diplomatic setting. Second is how they carry themselves, elves typically have this holier than thou and learned attitude toward the other races. Combined with a society which likes to be generally independent in regards to relying on the other races and elf would be a sight for most humans and carry and air of mystery due to how different their cultures are. Whereas as mentioned earlier, a Faes appearance would cause a bit of unease among the other races, "Who were they there for?", "Are they going to mug me?", ect. Finally while elves like to practice magic as a way of life, learning magic in a pursuit of knowledge and betterment while respecting both the world around them and the forces which birthed their powers. Fae would be far more interested in knowing the spells that benefit them the most, and caring only about such forces sofar as they will help them get the job done or make their lives easier.
  5. I think that true flight in the case of the assassin would be a bad idea, as I mentioned months ago it trivializes a lot of tactics that would otherwise be fitting in the setting. Glide sounds like a nice compromise, though, I hope climbing or greater jumping prowess comes as part of this as well. I think that there's a happy medium between true flight and gliding we can hope to hit. In response the comment about the Aracoix, I think I'd rather have a quick and mobile archetype who excels at scaling towers and making escapes, ect, than have the utility of flight with the clause that it feels like a 400 pound man on a peddle helicopter. And it'd be a lot less fitting if hitting the button for flight forced me to play Microsoft Plane Simulator for thirty seconds. Yes you can make it clunky, obnoxious, and short lived but how does that actually help the game? Not to mention that you're imposing the capabilities of a plane onto something that's organic. There are plenty of animals and insects which can hover in flight, for example.
  6. RMT is going to happen regardless, day 1 gold sellers will be swarming like they usually do. All this is going to do is help put a fraction of that market into developers hands to be regulated. I see this system becoming the standard in games shortly. Eve popularized it but W* followed suit and even blizzard has announced plans to do it. It doesn't make the game anymore P2W than it already is to be perfectly honest, and with the way that exchange normalizes in these situations you'd need to dump a -ton- of money to make a profit substantial enough to break the game (since its a commodity you'd be destroying your own market in the process, however).
  7. #6, well see what that really means soon enough.
  8. So what you beg someone like a dog for resource to play in an actual game or start a new character if you don't get out of a game with something? If traveling were done within the bounds of the campaign I'd understand but going between worlds is the equivilent of pressing the "Play" button in the league of legends client. I'd prefer for travel to not be oversimplified and immersive but not in what's essentially a fancy lobby. Let the resource costs apply to getting around a world not going to it in the first place. Edit: Also wasting peoples time on a game that's over is just stupid. The fun should be in playing the game and developing the campaign, not fighting the client to play in the first place.
  9. I would actually like to see nothing resembling a market or an auction house, rather, I think it would feel a lot more complete if players had the tools to properly implement their own business. I would love to see players who make a living buying and trading goods. By doing so you'd have people who's business it is to be the middleman. If a player can be a craftsman as a real profession I think being a merchant would be just as viable given the infrastructure is there to support that without trivializing it. So instead of going to the AH or market and listing your goods or w/e you'd find the local merchant or trader and sell it directly to them, it'd then be their job to find someone to sell it to for a profit. Edit: I also feel that real money items should be treated differently. Cosmetic items should not be tradeable and not be lootable off a corpse. VIP credits should be tradable and lootable, but have a grace period from purchasing until it can be looted. That way a player logging into the game after purchasing a VIP credit doesn't die before being able to click the thing and lose $15.
  10. I'm not sure true flight would be very balanced to be honested... Air dropping units in a keep pretty much invalidates sieging altogether. Similarly air travel is too convenient to skip the world and other players and combat would be determines by who has the most flying archers. I'd like to see them being used for short lived mobility if anything, gliding, safe fall, a high jump, even a very short duration flight would all be things that the wings could play a part in without actually breaking the environment. Again it's not so much flight I'm against as it is readily available true flight, which is a strategically dominating condition. You always have the high ground, you can never nail an ally with an arrow since you always have line of sight to the target, you always have an escape route, and you're nigh invulnerable to infantry. Even in out of combat situations flight is too good and throws away the idea of world pvp. Edit: Not to mention it carries the same problems people seem to have with stealth, that a fae would only ever fight a battle they could win. Imagine how stealth allows you to pick your fights but worse for flying.
  11. Yea that's makes sense, people higher up the chain will have access to players serving as guard probably fortifications, good armor, and a surplus of supplies even in the case of dying they'll be able to rally their allies and get back at the guy who killed him (assuming the killer was a nobody). I could see there being power grabs by similarly powerful entities that work to gain more influence for sure too.
  12. Full loot sounds like a terrible idea, partial loot would be ideal. In a system with full loot there's no reason to ever cooperate or play with other players beyond a kill everyone you see indiscriminately. There's nothing a player can offer to another player to build relations that the other player couldn't get by killing them in a full loot system. There will never be allies in a system with full loot is my concern. Why would I ever play with someone else if I could get all the benefits of being their ally by murdering them? Knowing there would never be a group of allied players to oppose me I would need not worry about being caught in a situation where I'm alone against a group. Unless there were something outside of what can be taken off my body that could server as influence I don't see how this is going to work. A king had a lineage of established power and wealth they didn't have to carry on their person. If they were to be killed then another would take their place, the killer wouldn't immediately be granted all their influence and wealth. There needs to be some sort of system for holding onto influence or wealth beyond what's actually lootable off my body for any sort of social structure to develop with full loot. I don't see anything explaining the world rules in detail. There's equipment degeneration and looting rules, but do the looting rules include armor and the equipment degeneration apply for the equipment that's being taken by the looter? Is there anyway to secure items or are you always back to square 1, 100% naked and itemless every time you die? Does the equivilent of my gold also get taken? Is there a reasonable way to store or keep things so I'm not completely unarmed when I die? And if I get looted completely what's to stop a true griefer from sitting at the spawn point waiting for naked and unarmed players to respawn from camping us? There are teasers but I haven't been able to find any hard and fast information about this.
×
×
  • Create New...