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

arieste

Member
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About arieste

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. What would be the potential risk/resources involved in this scenario? The guild with the city is risking their entire city - which i assume they've spent days or weeks building, if they lose, it's gone forever and they have nothing. MASSIVE risk. So what is guild 2 risking? It seems that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Furthermore, guild 1 can't even take revenge on them, because they have no city or anything of value. Not risking anything makes for bad world.
  2. of course. 2-3 gazelles can probably kill a cheetah too.
  3. I'm more concerned about race. Bathrooms need to be race-locked. have you ever tried to "go" next to a Minotaur? Those guys eat ANYTHING. I demand a segregated, Guinicean-only toilet!
  4. easy - just throw a magical treeboy out of a castle tower window.
  5. Yep, that's exactly how i would take it. I would interpret it as my knight having an additional knife to throw that is "useful" to his "riding a horse and killing people with a sword" playstyle. Your example is of the knight giving up his playstyle (of sword-fighting) to wield the dagger. It was stated that it would be useful for your existing playstyle not that it would be an opportunity to change your playstyle to something else, which is what it sounds like. This is what several runes did in SB iirc - completely changed your playstyle. Which is cool, but it's not the same thing as "useful to any playstyle". This is more a semantic argument at this point though, it's been clarified enough through subsequent developer input. I was just answering the question of how the original statement can be misleading - which it can.
  6. For me, it's this part: "Combat-ready pets are built as an extension to the mounts system, and will be useful for ALL archetypes -- they are not limited to a particular class or playstyle!" Key Words being: "combat" + "useful for ALL" + "not limited to playstyle" Now, this has been clarified somewhat by subsequent posts that say stuff along the lines "it can be part of your playstyle if you choose", but is pretty close to being the exact opposite of "not limited to a particular playstyle". But in general, if something is "useful for combat and not limited to any playstyle", that pretty much means "everyone should use it or suffer".
  7. So if Dregs is "everyone for themselves", does that mean that tehre is literally only ONE winner? And everyone else is a loser? Like in a 3 faction thing, it seems fairly simple - one faction is the winner other two are losers. Same with guilds - one guild wins, others lose. But literally one person? That's a whole lot of losers.
  8. Knowledge - in the MMO space is extremely easy to obtain and copy. One need only to read up on which skills are best for your class in various situations and BAM - you have the knowledge - so at this point everyone is equal. The next step is in acting on that knowledge and actually being "quick" enough to execute those skills when the right stimuli appears - this is "twitch". Twitch (or "execution") becomes the more important skill when the knowledge skill is easily capped. A simplistic example: If the most OP skill is "killing strike", then the person who figures it out has a clear advantage over his opponent and will defeat him based mostly on that knowledge. However, once his opponent figures out that "killing strike" is good and get it, then the knowledge skill hits a cap and the fight becomes about who is better at executing "killing strike". In order for knowledge to player a bigger part, there has to be an absolutely vast amount of it, that cannot be easily learned. This means a lot of design, a lot of skills, a lot of options - a lot of development cost. For twitch to play the bigger part, all you need is two different people. Cheaper development choice is obvoius.
  9. agrhh! I can see the positive in most things, but pet system is just eww. Not everyone wants to play a pet class! And if these become an intergral part of combat, now everyone has to.
  10. Again, i fail to see why this is different from combat. If i say to you: "the actual outcome of the fight should be a representation of my knowledge, my skill selection, my dedication and my opponent selection strategy - not how well i can move and push buttons during combat" or that: "hey, there are already plenty of games where i can run and jump and cast spells, we don't need it here" - I don't think these are good justifications for not including actual (player-skill-based) combat.
  11. I enjoy stating the obvious, so in recognition of the many failings of the world's many educational institutions, I will explain the difference without any jest. A "Duelist" is someone that participates in duels. A duel is one-on-one combat. The most commonly referenced historical duels used either guns (often muskets or revolvers) or blades (rapiers or sabres). A "Dualist" is not an actual word or term. Although given fantasy worlds and games, I would not be surprised if someone has actually used the term. The term "dual" is reference to having/using two of something. In terms of video gaming, it would most likely refer to dual-wielding - meaning the wielding of a weapon in each hand. Making the "Dualist" a short or slang form of "Dual-wielder" You're welcome.
  12. my responses in bold in quote above. I fully agree that the pvp crafting idea is pretty far-fetched, i just brought it up in response to other folks. But, anything that requires actual player skill can be made into pvp down the line. My main concern is not with creating pvp crafting (althogh that would be supa cool) but that the crafting system DOES involve player skill at its base. (And by "player skill" i mean "being good at pushing buttons during item creation results in meaningful success over those that are bad at it". The details of it, i'm not greatly concerned with. I just want people who are good to be better than those that are bad - to make better items, to build better reputations, to win.)
  13. I guess on a serious note, I think the logical specializations will be: Sapper (a.k.a. Combat Engineer, Tunneler, Saboteur, Munitionist, Grenadier) - This will be focused on the battlefield "specialist" role using explosives and burrowing. Swashbuckler (a.k.a. Blademaster, Musketeer) - This will be focused on the individual combat prowess with blades and firearms. Architect (a.k.a. Builder, Sculptor, Scientist) - This will be focused on crafting skills.
×
×
  • Create New...