How to be a true warrior. [Suggestions]

"

mteriba wrote:

LMAO,the way you two are going about it is hilarious. Anyway, the way GGG could go about exploring what you are thinking off is creating skills that are specific to the classes. The marauder could have skills specifically made for his class so that he could do what you suggested...but then, creating class skills would make the game pretty much like every game out there, changing the design philosophy...so it's nice to think about, but I don't see GGG doing something like that anytime soon.

"

supertact wrote:

"

EchoMending wrote:

PoE is not a combat simulator.

Thanks for stopping bye!

I hate faggots like this

"

Vakirauta wrote:

"

EchoMending wrote:

PoE is not a combat simulator.

Thanks for stopping bye!

Tries to be cool; fails.

"

Narutobieber wrote:

I think my autism meter exploded while reading this post.

"

ThisFrickinSite wrote:

This seems to be an issue with your taste in combat types, and how it matches up with the dev's taste. If you really want something that follows realistic "warrior" combat, maybe you shouldn't be playing games that involve magical skills and weapons worn by mostly magical people that also use a magical skill tree in order to take down hoards of magical enemies on a large, magical continent.

Obviously, if this game was meant to simulate the type of combat that you want, it probably would. I doubt that they accidentally brought the game to rely on aoe based skills/skills adapted to aoe, especially since so many areas have group sizes that really need you to stand back and eliminate mobs at a rate higher than any warrior could. Since aoe generally means magic if it isn't in the form of explosives, aoe would probably not be the warrior's choice of combat methods. With the game's current high mob counts and high-density groups, the new warrior would need to take a lot more damage, which means more hp (11k is already possible) or more armor. Both of these end up being problems because of the fact that, in this game, any class can mix its self into other sections of the skill tree and adapt to their weapons/battle garments. What we would end up seeing is a lot more supertank casters/magic bow classes.

I know that you never said that tanking was the problem, and nor did you say that you wanted less aoe combat, but you indirectly asked of it. Since warriors can't actually swing an ax and hit an infinite amount of enemies standing in close range to them (cleave), they would need to be able to take much more damage because taking down entire groups 1 or 2 at a time leaves you much, much more vulnerable for much, much more time.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

How to be a true warrior. - Go join a war effort.

Hmm.. last time I checked, there was only a lot of melee nodes nearby Marauder, and GGG didn't force anyone to take nodes from other classes. Nobody is forcing anyone to go cookie-cutter builds also, and the whole point of this game is to find a build that suits your aesthetic taste while working well. Have you tried going mace + infernal blow? If you become strong enough, every hit on white mob is an explosion.

For your skill suggestion, it's not really a skill suggestion. First and foremost, you should provide plausible mechanisms for each skills that you listed, and to top it off, you are mostly describing the animations that you want to see from those skills, i.e. "more gory stuff, but different animations from existing ones". And why does only marauder get to have them? Don't you think Fireball, Bear Trap, Explosive Arrow, and any other "non-marauder" skills shouldn't have them? After all, they all invoke very gruesome death for those who get hit by them, at least in my mind.

As for your friend, why do we just stop with mage/ranger/melee? Doesn't he feel too complicated by having 2 ranged characters to choose from? Or how about just having 1 character and we all use him? It's not just the modern RPG that have more than 3 classes, D2, WoW, DaoC, and GW had more than 3, and all of them were released +10 yrs ago. And if he doesn't understand why there is a "TON" of subclasses in this game, then he needs to study more about the passive tree.

As my last point, your description of what a warrior should be.. Factually you are probably wrong, as there were and are many examples of warriors who do not kill people in a cruel manner. And if you are to say "I'm describing warriors in RPGs", I would reply that you are claiming something that there's no consensus about, so you are defining a warrior in a term that can be disagreed by many. So let's be honest here, and say that the word you are probably referring to is a "savage".

For me, a warrior is someone with a sword and a shield who slashes his way through an abundance of enemy, without any of the unnecessary "gut-ripping".

You're right, the warrior is the savage, but don't tell others that, it's exactly like telling them that santa doesn't exist.

In the beginning of time, to be a warrior, was to be a pride-driven war machine. Today's themes aren't accurate, since people don't know what they are talking about most of the time, thus we end up with characters that don't even belong most of the time.

I don't think you have the right idea about the origination of a warrior. The entire warrior aspect originated back in the primitive days where rituals, superstition, blood, hunger, survival, death games and so on ensued based on what little humans could understand at the time. We have advanced far, but deep down we are still primitive, and we have a lust for war, for battle or for something we can stand for and have a voice in.

In the end, the only warrior that can live with these deeds is the warrior/savage I am referencing. Everyone else ends up killing themselves, as the consciousness wasn't built to sustain death being in your hands.

So you see, Buddha, I have contemplated more than you give me credit for. I know what I'm saying, and the skill suggestions I have provided are more than enough to start the details of what type of skills we could implement that would accompany those very brutal aspects.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

It's a complicated area I am referring to. It's not a combat simulator for warriors. It's not about being 100% warrior, either. I don't care if the character can still use magic and bows, but what I do care for, is that this is all the Marauder can depend on. 95% of the skills in-game aren't Marauder based. All you really have is leap slam, infernal blow and ground slam and I guess dominating blow, but let's be sensible for a second here; these skills alone do not do well in contributing to a true warrior experience. The Marauder might as well be called the nightmare bunny with pretty colours.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

Apparently you haven't contemplated enough, or at least haven't contemplated enough about my criticisms, since you missed most of my points, and just proceeded to tell me what "warrior" means for you, and maybe what you thought was the "history of men". And your claims that "humans are still primitive", or that there were "death games", or the unclear definition of "primitive" (you said "back in the primitive days.." and then you also say that we are primitive, so are we still in the "primitive days?") are all just "allegations".

Your nice little story about what a warrior was.. Can you give me any good evidence (e.g. academic journals, trustworthy news) that the etymology of the word "warrior" is as you say? Otherwise you are just popping something out of your ass. Because what I have discovered from googling "etymology of warrior" is this:

Origin (dictionary.com):
1250–1300; Middle English werreieor < Old North French, equivalent to werrei(er) to war1 + -eor -or2

And I repeat, if you have a better trusted source that supports your claim on the origin of "warrior", then I would be very interested.

You also haven't given any details on the mechanics of your so called "skills". To use FP as an example:
- it is a projectile, spell, aoe, and cold damage;
- damage increases with "increased cold damage", "increased spell damage", "increased elemental damage";
- "increased projectile speed" will get FP to travel further;
- GMP splits FP into 5;
- etc.

Do you now clearly see what you were missing?

"

Deceptionist wrote:

It's a complicated area I am referring to. It's not a combat simulator for warriors. It's not about being 100% warrior, either. I don't care if the character can still use magic and bows, but what I do care for, is that this is all the Marauder can depend on. 95% of the skills in-game aren't Marauder based. All you really have is leap slam, infernal blow and ground slam and I guess dominating blow, but let's be sensible for a second here; these skills alone do not do well in contributing to a true warrior experience. The Marauder might as well be called the nightmare bunny with pretty colours.

http://www.pathofexile.com/skills/strength

You didn't list Heavy Strike, Glacial Hammer, Sweep, Cleave, and LS. Then, the number of skills in the list becomes similar to the number of ranger's skills.

You keep referring "true warrior experience" as if it's something that's experienced equally by everyone, but it's not.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

"

ThisFrickinSite wrote:

This seems to be an issue with your taste in combat types, and how it matches up with the dev's taste. If you really want something that follows realistic "warrior" combat, maybe you shouldn't be playing games that involve magical skills and weapons worn by mostly magical people that also use a magical skill tree in order to take down hoards of magical enemies on a large, magical continent.

Obviously, if this game was meant to simulate the type of combat that you want, it probably would. I doubt that they accidentally brought the game to rely on aoe based skills/skills adapted to aoe, especially since so many areas have group sizes that really need you to stand back and eliminate mobs at a rate higher than any warrior could. Since aoe generally means magic if it isn't in the form of explosives, aoe would probably not be the warrior's choice of combat methods. With the game's current high mob counts and high-density groups, the new warrior would need to take a lot more damage, which means more hp (11k is already possible) or more armor. Both of these end up being problems because of the fact that, in this game, any class can mix its self into other sections of the skill tree and adapt to their weapons/battle garments. What we would end up seeing is a lot more supertank casters/magic bow classes.

I know that you never said that tanking was the problem, and nor did you say that you wanted less aoe combat, but you indirectly asked of it. Since warriors can't actually swing an ax and hit an infinite amount of enemies standing in close range to them (cleave), they would need to be able to take much more damage because taking down entire groups 1 or 2 at a time leaves you much, much more vulnerable for much, much more time.

It's a complicated area I am referring to. It's not a combat simulator for warriors. It's not about being 100% warrior, either. I don't care if the character can still use magic and bows, but what I do care for, is that this is all the Marauder can depend on. 95% of the skills in-game aren't Marauder based. All you really have is leap slam, infernal blow and ground slam and I guess dominating blow, but let's be sensible for a second here; these skills alone do not do well in contributing to a true warrior experience. The Marauder might as well be called the nightmare bunny with pretty colours.

"

ThisFrickinSite wrote:

Well, keep in mind that this is still early open beta and many skills have not been added that will be there in the future. I doubt that the Marauder is going to end up being a colorful hell bunny as that isn't at all what it feels like to... anyone that isn't you. I mean, really, it looks like a giant, mutated, thick-skinned human that swings around giant maces. Nothing about it feels like a bunny and there aren't even any pretty colors in most (exception goes to a2's opening area) of the game's dark art style.