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

illi

Testers
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About illi

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I know this topic is basically closed, but I have to say something to the lore reasonings used. First of all, when you have eternal heroes chosen by gods you went: "Oh, so we have these champions of the gods. We have archetypes as playable "classes". Clearly, God champion = archetype." That is not what archetype is. Archetype is a basic personality model, it´s a set of properties, ways of acting or skills etc. You can assign multiple persons to one archetype, because they have core similarities, yet they may be different in some things. It´s actually a thing used in psychology, media studies and whatnot. Fun fact: there are 12 basic archetypes in this theory. This is a simple diagram of the 12 basic archetypes: http://www.formalifesciencemarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Archetypes-Chart.jpg .It is very possible I did not explain it good enough, just google it, there are some good articles around. They chose to call the classes archetypes, as it is a race+class combination and it is a basic model of what that character can do. Technically, the true archetype is tank, support and damage (and specialist in this case). It´s probably the best way (or at least the best they could come up with) to call the classes, as it is ultimatelly not just a class, but a class too. In one sentence, we can call our characters the Champions of the Gods lore-wise and archetypes mechanics-wise. Not the same thing though. Then there is the question of connection between Gods and Heroes (Champions/Archetypes...). Sure, the archetypes have distinct themes and flairs and you can connect them to different Gods if you want. But as far as I understand it, the Gods chose you, not the other way around. You died. You were brought back to life by a God to act like his champion in the field of battle. Let´s say that you are an elkken that worshiped D´Orion in life. You died. Who says thet another god hasn´t looked at you and said "hey, that dude was really formidable in life, I´ll ressurect him as my champion. I will gain a formidable warrior while screwing over my enemy D´Orion at the same time!". This way you can have everyone serve anybody. Ultimately, it´s not your choice. From roleplay standpoint, you can build interesting characters that now have to fight the champions of the god they used to worship. Besides, there is also a need to distinguish lore and mechanics. As I said, your hero might not have a choice of who he will fight for. It´d be lame though, if you, as a player, will not have a choice on who you want to fight for.
  2. To make you feel better, I once watched an interview where he said he in fact makes mistakes. At one point a character has green eyes for example, in other book he has suddenly brown eyes. He then recieves fan letters that remind him of these mistakes and he is just blown away how can people remember that. So, from certain point of view, you have memory just as good as GRRM Also, the elven blademaster sounds cool as hell
  3. Even though I love to choose the perfect race/class combo that would suit me well (not necessarily from a gameplay standpoint to give me advantage), I kinda like the idea of archetypes, but we will see how the idea will be executed. I don´t want to see thousand copies of me running around. As long as character creation will allow to creat fairly distinct looks, I´m OK with it. Opening up all combination and allow everyone be everything sounds like a good idea, but it´s bad - it takes out uniqueness of the race and it´s lore. Not everyone can be everything. But even if there will be some constrictions on race/class combo...it was always weird to me that elf warrior and human warrior use the same technique, same attacks...same everything. Surely different races have different fighting styles? This is what archetypes can accompish - you may have a warrior type, but humans are knights, while guineccan (did I spell it right?) are duelists. It may take away uniqueness of characters, but it gives uniqueness to races themselves. What I see as (maybe) a problem, is the beast races having really just one archetype. There are several for humans, but other races have just one (except guineccan, if you cound Slayer ). What would be better use for the money from the stretch goal you suggested is making new archetypes of the existing races, giving them more variability.
  4. I see what you did there Now, that I´m thinking about it, this is an obvious thing to do
  5. illi

    Jumping

    It would be interesting if they had some sort of "Explorer" subclass using the runestones. Like, everybody can jump normally, but only the ones with Explorer rune equiped can jump higher and further, having ability to also control character mid-jump.
  6. yeah, that was basically my point. The buildings and environments might be generic and thus some can think of them as quickly boring, but it´s the overall context that gives life to everything
  7. I´m comming a little late to this, but whatever. The thing with regular MMOs is they reuse assets too. Let´s take WoW as example (I know, how original of me!): you have generic human tavern, generic orc tavern, generic undead tavern (that is in fact generic human tawern, just old, dirty and in ruin)...generic jungle tree nr. 3, generic horde tower...the list goes on and on. And yet, I really enjoyed exploring the world, I climebed most of the generic towers, went to most of the generic inns. Sure, there will be only so much "tetris pieces" that they can generate and change, but if I understand it correctly, they can still change the towns and things on those pieces, making it more unique again. It´s not ideal, it has it´s problems, but it ultimately gives you more to explore than one static world. At least on paper, we will see how it will look in the actual game.
×
×
  • Create New...