How to be a true warrior. [Suggestions]

What is it with you and the word "brutal". Autism ahoy!

"

Deceptionist wrote:

Alright, if you want to play semantics, then I will oblige willingly: Look up the word [human], you will see that word's origination is in the 16th century, then you will see that we have used the word [human] to describe people back in the primitive days just as much as we do to describe the people today. This is no different than me using [warrior] to describe the past, even though the word orignated at a much later era.

You also made the false assumption that I wanted to actually come up with skills in detail. I'm only setting a simple perspective on the table, however. The Marauder deserves to have a more brutal makeover to match the superstitious war-machine that he is. It's that simple. Your responses toward me lately sounds more like a vendetta, to be honest.

I see that you barely addressed my concerns, so I'll write this one as a last attempt. I'll attempt to break down your claims into pieces, so it will hopefully be easier for you to understand.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

Alright, if you want to play semantics, then I will oblige willingly

The so called "playing with semantics" is, I believe, the foundation of any intelligent discussion, because if the interlocutors do not set a strict definition of words that are important in discussion, then all the arguments coming afterwards will be nothing but hot air (recommended read: Chapter "Of Man" in Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan").

"

Deceptionist wrote:

Look up the word [human], you will see that word's origination is in the 16th century, then you will see that we have used the word [human] to describe people back in the primitive days just as much as we do to describe the people today.

I agree that the word "human" is used to refer to a human being, whether in past or present. But I have problem with your argument that succeeds it:

"

Deceptionist wrote:

This is no different than me using [warrior] to describe the past, even though the word orignated at a much later era.

Now, I don't have a problem with you describing the past using the word "warrior", but like I have said repeatedly, your idea of "what a warrior supposed to be" is neither accepted by majority nor based on evidences. And your description of its history is essentially your idea of how people behaved in the past. In other words, I have a problem with your definition of "warrior", and how you justified that definition.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

You also made the false assumption that I wanted to actually come up with skills in detail. I'm only setting a simple perspective on the table, however.

I wasn't making that assumption at all. If you want to make a constructive suggestion on skills (this is what I was assuming), it must contribute in bettering the interaction between players and the skill system within the current context. That is, the skill should be innovative, supported by majority, or at least should have descriptions as to how it will work. Otherwise anyone can write anything and call it a "constructive suggestion".

For example:
I'm a ranger and it doesn't feel "rangery" enough. A true ranger is supposed to shoot arrows from at minimum a mile away. History proves that rangers were those who could annihilate their opponents from long distances. After all, ranger contains "range", am I right?? So what I'm suggesting is a skill with more range. Anything that pops a cap in zombie's ass from one end of a map to another.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that what you have wrote was a complaint about "not enough gory animations for marauders", which was neither descriptive nor innovative.

I'm sorry you feel that I was being hostile, to be honest, I feel a little fed up with others who would just complain excessively about the aspects of the game, even though GGG seem to be working prudently (more so than most gaming companies), and without keeping in mind that it is still indie (which means little resources, and if someone says they made a lot of money in OB, I don't know that for sure, but it also takes time to hire/train more people). You are just an unfortunate fellow whose post is the one where I happened to write when I had these thoughts in my head, and I feel sorry that you feel that way. No hard feelings.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

The so called "playing with semantics" is, I believe, the foundation of any intelligent discussion, because if the interlocutors do not set a strict definition of words that are important in discussion, then all the arguments coming afterwards will be nothing but hot air (recommended read: Chapter "Of Man" in Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan").

I agree that the word "human" is used to refer to a human being, whether in past or present. But I have problem with your argument that succeeds it:

Now, I don't have a problem with you describing the past using the word "warrior", but like I have said repeatedly, your idea of "what a warrior supposed to be" is neither accepted by majority nor based on evidences. And your description of its history is essentially your idea of how people behaved in the past. In other words, I have a problem with your definition of "warrior", and how you justified that definition.

I wasn't making that assumption at all. If you want to make a constructive suggestion on skills (this is what I was assuming), it must contribute in bettering the interaction between all players and the skill system. That is, the skill should be innovative, or at least he must provide descriptions as to how it will work. Otherwise anyone can write anything and call it a "constructive suggestion".

For example:
I'm a ranger and it doesn't feel "rangery" enough. A true ranger is supposed to shoot arrows from at minimum a mile away. History proves that rangers were those who could annihilate their opponents from long distances. After all, ranger contains "range", am I right?? So what I'm suggesting is a skill with more range. Anything that pops a cap in zombie's ass from one end of a map to another.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that what you have wrote was a complaint about "not enough gory animations for marauders", which was neither descriptive nor innovative.

I'm sorry you feel that I was being hostile, to be honest, I feel a little fed up with others who would just complain excessively about the aspects of the game, even though GGG seem to be working prudently (more so than most gaming companies), and without keeping in mind that it is still indie (which means little resources, and if someone says they made a lot of money in OB, I don't know that for sure, but it also takes time to hire/train more people). You are just an unfortunate fellow whose post is the one where I happened to write when I had these thoughts in my head, and I feel sorry that you feel that way. No hard feelings.

I'm going to say this right now: I despise Thomas Hobbes. My views are further alligned with Thomas Paine. Hobbes' political theory, and how we were all gears in the machine was an absurd and foolish argument. The very fact that Hobbes couldn't see past: The use of a government. It sounds more likely that Hobbes was a talking head for major industries, while Thomas Paine was yet another voice that fell on deaf ears; i.e common ears.

A warrior is when one commits themselves to war. When someone is only in it for the kill, the thrill and the lustful zeal. This was exactly how people back in the primitive days were reacting to their need to fight, which was a mistake in perceptual mannerisms.

Well, I am not exactly imaginative when it comes to things that haven't existed yet. I can only work with what already exists. My mind is purely practical and it stands in one reality -- one reality only -- and that is this reality. I deal with perspectives; what has already been built and created. That's what I do. So I am here to open a window to opportunities, but I am not going to build outside of that window, because I can't. I'm also very terrible with numbers and names.

Furthermore, your expectations and your personal idea on what is innovative doesn't faze me. I can supply the idea without supplying the structure. Philosophy built Science, and philosophy wasn't something that was imaginative, it was speculative... Science isn't speculative, it's imaginatively upright towards our speculations.

the thing about PoE is that you don't choose your class on the char creation screen - you choose your class with the skills you pick and the keypoint passives you choose to get.

So you may argue that art/amination of some or all melee Skills, or that one or some or all character models arn't to your liking. Or you may ask for some Skills that would look the part.

But you can't argue a Class doesn't look like it's "supposed to look".
Frankly I know more raged/caster marauders than melee ones.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

I'm going to say this right now: I despise Thomas Hobbes. My views are further alligned with Thomas Paine. Hobbes' political theory, and how we were all gears in the machine was an absurd and foolish argument. The very fact that Hobbes couldn't see passed: The use of a government. It sounds more likely that Hobbes was a talking head for major industries, while Thomas Paine was yet another voice that fell on deaf ears; i.e common ears.

About the original argument, I think we can only agree to disagree at this point. But I like Political philosophy, so I wanna just talk briefly about it.

I think you have a wrong picture as a whole about Thomas Hobbes. What you are referring to, I think, is in the later chapters, starting from "Of Commonwealth". I'm only at "Of Man", so I'll pass judgements on that, and about Thomas Paine, until I finish reading both of them. But from what I have read in the first chapter, "Of Man", and some background info on Hobbes, he seems to have introduced an innovative approach to epistemology in Western Philosophy when it was in decline due to Scholasticism method of reasoning. He developed a "geometric reasoning" (I think it's called inductive reasoning today), thanks to the influence of Galileo, in which he lays out a systemic approach to seeking truth, which is modeled after philosophy of mathematics.

Basically, every proposition must either be, or supported by, an axiom. For example, consider 1 + 1 = 2. We must first ask how is this true? And we can easily find the solution in our direct experience. We might have had one book, stole one book from others, and now have two books. And since "1 + 1 = 2" has been established as a truth in "time and place"(resonating the Scientific Method), it will then serve as an axiom for other propositions. Hobbes proposed that the same approach was to be pursued philosophy, and he has many interesting examples in "Of Man".

Hobbes also composed a thought provoking idea of the "state of nature", i.e. anarchy, and he thoughts on why human beings began to form political units. Although the origin of political institution was discussed long before Hobbes (I think Plato in "The Republic", and Aristotle in "Politics"), I think that once I read about the "state of nature", it will provide me a fresh perspective.

Hobbes was an interesting and complex man, like all of us. I think it's a bit rash to entirely dismiss him for aspects that we don't agree with.

"

BuddhaSpeaks wrote:

About the original argument, I think we can only agree to disagree at this point. But I like Political philosophy, so I wanna just talk briefly about it.

I think you have a wrong picture as a whole about Thomas Hobbes. What you are referring to, I think, is in the later chapters, starting from "Of Commonwealth". I'm only at "Of Man", so I'll pass judgements on that, and about Thomas Paine, until I finish reading both of them. But from what I have read in the first chapter, "Of Man", and some background info on Hobbes, he seems to have introduced an innovative approach to epistemology in Western Philosophy when it was in decline due to Scholasticism method of reasoning. He developed a "geometric reasoning" (I think it's called inductive reasoning today), thanks to the influence of Galileo, in which he lays out a systemic approach to seeking truth, which is modeled after philosophy of mathematics.

Basically, every proposition must either be, or supported by, an axiom. For example, consider 1 + 1 = 2. We must first ask how is this true? And we can easily find the solution in our direct experience. We might have had one book, stole one book from others, and now have two books. And since "1 + 1 = 2" has been established as a truth in "time and place"(resonating the Scientific Method), it will then serve as an axiom for other propositions. Hobbes proposed that the same approach was to be pursued philosophy, and he has many interesting examples in "Of Man".

Hobbes also composed a thought provoking idea of the "state of nature", i.e. anarchy, and he thoughts on why human beings began to form political units. Although the origin of political institution was discussed long before Hobbes (I think Plato in "The Republic", and Aristotle in "Politics"), I think that once I read about the "state of nature", it will provide me a fresh perspective.

Hobbes was an interesting and complex man, like all of us. I think it's a bit rash to entirely dismiss him for aspects that we don't agree with.

The way I see it, even the darkest, shittiest, most fucked, most evil, most monsterous people can come up with an idea that is worth re-experiencing. I do not like Hobbes, he is the reason why we have a government. Did Hobbes ever use his brain to ask: "What makes the government? People. What does the government do? It governs people. What does this mean? People governing people? Wait, this doesn't make any sense!"...?

I admire your will to defend your aspiring artists, but I do not like your artist, he is a talking head for major businesses back in that time, while Thomas Paine still couldn't reveal himself until later on. Thomas Paine said much more than Hobbes ever wished himself. Hobbes was another blithering political figure head for ulterior reasons. If you read between the lines, you can almost smell the metalic in Hobbes from his writing.

I simply see no reason to have any positive disposition towards that man. If you want to discuss about it through PM's or even a new Off-Topic thread, I will be more than elated to oblige, Buddha.

"

Buchsbaum wrote:

the thing about PoE is that you don't choose your class on the char creation screen - you choose your class with the skills you pick and the keypoint passives you choose to get.

So you may argue that art/amination of some or all melee Skills, or that one or some or all character models arn't to your liking. Or you may ask for some Skills that would look the part.

But you can't argue a Class doesn't look like it's "supposed to look".
Frankly I know more raged/caster marauders than melee ones.

I didn't see your post, I'll start with this one to get back on topic:

I disagree. Skills and attributes play separate roles from the classes.

All I'm saying is that the Marauder deserves a bit of a makeover, because right now this class is hollow compared to the rest of the classes. I only feel the character via the voice acting, but the character as a whole is lackluster at best.

How to be a true warrior...

Challenge both Deceptionist and BuddhaSpeaks in unarmed debate.

2 vs 1.

To the death.

And win.

Well... did not read all the posts... had to laugh at main thread.

If you take the human role and place it in the category of the "warrior" role, then you have distinctively forgot about the emotional, ethical and upbringing.

Best way to explain some warrior classes maybe in the sense of types:

Amazonions
Samurai
Cowboy
Shaolin
etc

The "Warrior" model is based on that tribe / leader etc. So, you are the Chief, you design and model your characters as warriors as you see fit, but, you only have access to certain materials, just like the Romans vs Germanic tribes.
___________

As for your post, it seems that you and your friend like to be brutal (your words) and want to show "BRAWN" over "Brains"... Just like a Boxer fighting a Tae Kwon Do fighter. If either have to fight using the others rules of combat, they are both weak, but, if you combine both skills to one person, they can defeat a standard boxer or TKD in the ring.

This is just a game, if you want to make suggestions, then do so.
___________

Oh... and to your question: Don't use any skill points in the Tree of any build... I am level 11 on my Shadow using a 2 hand sword... not sure how long I will survive in hardcore... so to me, a TRUE Warrior is one that can survive as best they can with what they have.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

Well, let's put it this way: Is Obama black? Is Obama white? Does it matter? What is the point of communicating an idea if people aren't going to take it into consideration because it doesn't involve their own me me me saga. Does our thoughts on Obama's ethnicity have anything to do with Obama's decisions? No. No matter how we see Obama on the surface, those actions are the same consequential actions as before.

The pretty lights were referencing the auras the Marauder has to wear inorder to survive Merciless. Also, Marauder is definately a hell bunny that needs to be more brutal; I want the Marauder to be more of a wilderbeast. As I said before: Every class has a persona and their own skills, but even if you count the skills the Marauder has as the Marauder's, I contest that this Marauder deserves more than: A simple move that blows up enemies [infernal blow], a move that turns you into a mad bunny [leap slam], or a move that pushes back your enemies [heavy slam]. Every other skill fits the other classes more -- for an example, cleave [duelist], ground slam [templar], or lightning strike [witch/shadow].

I think that you're missing the point of the game, or more specifically, the direction of the Marauder. I have never heard anyone say that it is supposed to resemble what you'd think of as a warrior except for you.

And of course you need auras to survive Merciless, almost ever class does, and why would you complain? It is a completely magical based game and I just keep hearing you indirectly asking for less magic to be required. That would be fine if that was a good idea for all of the other classes, too, because even though less magic would be required, they would still be able to take advantage of the idea that any class can use any skills and all passive points and eventually it would just be a strait up marauder buff. Now they wouldn't even need auras (like most other builds) but they would use them anyway.

If you really want to feel like a warrior, go play Chivalry.