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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Sorry Soulein, you're not getting a bladeweaver in heavy plate! Don't think it is in the cards ("blademaster thrall" notwithstanding). I'm not getting my bard, either....
  2. Missing me my bard type. (I still love the Shadowbane bard more than any other.)
  3. If aiming a reticule = skill, then to me, the combat will be designed around who moves the mouse best. Maybe for some people that means "skillful," a kind that is different from meaningful choice (which seems be the intent behind the Tera-style "animation locks"). For me, if we want skill, then forget aiming a mouse altogether. This game needs to come with full body suits armed with sensors over every joint and along every limb. Let me swing a proxy sword in my living room while standing on a feedback pad and translate every swing and block I do to the game. That, to me, is a lot more "skillful" than maneuvering a pointer on a screen. As for the topic of the post, I'm in the camp of people who thinks you can probably kill the ground animations without suffering much (players will adjust), and they can get really bothersome. If anything, I like the suggestions to keep it a simple outline of an area, somewhat like the GW2 style.
  4. Rest well, Ta'Kier. Tomorrow the battle begins.
  5. kishijo

    The Lore

    When you got it, flaunt it.
  6. Mass matters, too. I expect the stoneborn to have as much mass as a half-giant champion even though they aren't nearly as big.
  7. Because of the shovel on the icon!
  8. Destructible character models? Would love to be able to chop off my opponents leg. ;-) In all seriousness, the level of strategy this will offer to sieges is fascinating.
  9. Ah, I missed that one (though I suspected it might be the case -- it didn't make sense to have as many as 24 archetypes if they weren't locked race combos anyway). I also agree with your supposition about the "Crest Faction" flexibility.
  10. Both of the emblems ("Hero" and "Arkyn") are on the left side of the Cryptic Tree, which is next to the Sun, which is generally presumed to be "Order" (in the Order, Balance, Chaos tripartite system). I think what you are seeing here is that (certain) archetypes (maybe not all?) will be able to choose which crest to which they align themselves. Probably there are certain restrictions, like the Fae Assassin probably cannot align to Arkyn, or to d'Orion (which seems like a nature faction). I suspect of the 13 crests, you choose your archetype (now you have 8 crests to choose), then your race (now you have 5 crests to choose) and you choose your advancement profession (4 crests to choose). Each layer probably restricts your options. So for instance, I choose the Knight archetype. (I'm limited to Order and Balance factions). Then I choose the "Noble" race (probably human), now I'm, limited to Order factions. And so on. Although when you play in GvG or in Free for All Campaigns, I bet that those choices don't matter.
  11. On one hand, I can agree, simply because most people want to do what they want and they get touchy about it when the game doesn't allow them to (for what gamers perceive as arbitrary rules). On the other, I see it as another form of strategic choice. While I don't suspect that you will be tied to a particular crest/deity from the start and that you will be able to choose, I do expect that you won't be able to change that decision. I also suspect each deity/crest offers some particular buff/advantage/whatever. This would mean that everyone who wants to play together would need to choose a crest/deity to align under from the beginning. Some archetypes are likely to be restricted from pledging to certain crests/deities, however, effectively causing the limitation: "No, can't play Templars and Fae Assassins together under the D'Orion crest." Allowing guilds to change their allegiances per campaign seems like a decent compromise, but may not get around the restrictions of certain archetypes. Then again, the Free for All Rule set (and maybe GvG) don't have these limitations anyway. I'm not sure where I stand, though I lean toward the side of making this be a decision players (as a team) have to make, and one with an eye toward how to succeed together ("strategery!").
  12. kishijo


    I have the distinct impression that for the moment, the customization options will be pretty limited. Probably hair color, some facial features and hair styles. The models we have seen from pre-alpha game footage don't seem like they are going to scale up and down particularly well (completely unprofessional opinion...), so I'm doubting there will be a lot of variability in somatotype. Maybe I'm off-base, and certainly player customization is a big part of an MMO for many players. But I get the feeling more effort on the small team is going into the overall game design and less into individualization options. We've read elsewhere that he male templar and knight are using the same skeletal frame (JTC mentioned this in the thread on "Ask the Devs"), and it wouldn't surprise me if they are all human. "Noble" certainly seems to be considered with a great deal of cynicism on a semantic level by the posthumous knight in their backstory... The Templars were not, as I recall, sporting any particular crests (were they?), but the Knights are (over on the "Order" side of the tree). The cynicism calls into question the role of the Gods in the tripartite Order, Balance & Chaos structure, doesn't it?
  13. I'm glad to see the varied crests sported by each. Given the past structure in SB, I was anticipating this kind of flexibility in allegiance. It remains to be seen how this works with the different worlds and different rulesets for each campaign. In God's Reach/Three Faction, ostensibly both these knights would be fighting on the same side. But in The Infected/God War, they would be different. And in The Shadow/GvG, it would depend on the guild structure (perhaps guilds now don't have to be aligned with any particular god/crest). So how will "guilds" handle this for their campaigns? There is a certain incentive for everyone to align to the same crest/god/faction so that they can stay together in all campaigns. But there might be archetype restrictions - maybe the Knight can only align to Order and Balance factions? Looks fascinating to me with even more layers of strategy (esp. if certain crests/factions/gods offer particular bonuses to their followers), but I suspect many will be disappointed at what they see is an arbitrary form of control. ("But I want to play x, and they won't let me!")
  14. Love the concept, and have been hoping this would be part of the mechanism to de-power zeros, as well as provide a target for specialized groups to go after.
  • Create New...