|
Mr. Roguish -> RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas (8/27/2020 11:39:50)
|
quote:
I'm not entirely sure what you're using to base these assumptions on, since there isn't a description of these builds at the start of the game. A number of these assumptions aren't even right. For example, the comments about armour resistances are completely false. If mage armours were designed around this concept, we would have items like High communicant's Zeal. We even have no-drops that fall against it (see Insightful Armour of Awe. Literally explained in the next comment you quoted me on between both words "most". And of course you'll have (should have) a variety of armors that will suit a variety of different sub builds like I explained. But as you explained yourself, the current meta is stunlock and nuke, so these armors will not be commonly used and far few in between.
quote:
FO is preferred by many vocal players, and so we've saw a large number of FO armours released over the years. However, that doesn't define the build, only gives that particular direction more options. We have more armours that benefit FO mages, but it doesn't mean I couldn't play a FD Tome mage if I wanted, which would completely fly in the face of your definition of Mage as a build. You can also have a FD mage-centred around dodging (see this character), blurring the concept of Mage and Ranger/Rogue somewhat. I never said it defines the build, in fact I SPECIFICALLY mentioned how it doesn't when I said:quote:
and not the armor's full-defense to full-offense because all that does for the build realistically is dictate which weapon would be best to use with the armor via 100% proc/spells for defensive armors or realistically anything under 50% proc for offensive armors. Also, when you're comparing armor leans to builds, you need to keep the leans consistent in which case yes, a defensive warrior and rogue would normally take less damage than a defensive mage unless they used the same exact armor and misc and dedicated spells to being even more defensive than normal and intentionally giving up effective means to deal damage comparable to the other builds. So no it doesn't fly in the face of my definition because that kind of build goes against efficiency and effectiveness of MP and the current meta. That doesn't mean you can't play as a FD mage that uses tomes, but most players strive to end the fight as quickly as possible and optimal minimization of usage of resources (HP, MP, SP, potions).
quote:
1). It's not technically possible, it outright is. Any build can use any armour. The question is whether they see a significant benefit from using it (as you have pointed out). For example, it's fairly obvious a spellbooster is going to be more useful for a mage. However, it can still prove useful for warriors and rangers because they also boost the power of spell-type skills (like Chaos Tendrils from the Chaos Slayer Cleric Armour). A redundant statement as you literally mentioned how I addressed the real stipulation. And this comment has been focused on armors so how are you supposed to utilize an armor's spellboost effect for another build's armor's spell based skill?
quote:
2). Feeding into this, Armours don't have specific class designations at all. There are armours that clearly are more beneficial for a Ranger, Mage etc., but there's nothing on any Armour stating that this is specifically designed for a certain build. In the case of werewolf, Warriors clearly get a lot of use out of the STR/DEX boosts, alongside the other skills like Beast Form and Snarl. However, those abilities are just as useful for rangers, who may want to inflict fear, or use the STR/DEX toggles to boost the power of their ranged weapons as well. Armours aren't designated to a specific build, they have a pool of accumulated points to invest in their MRM/Elemental defences, and have a specific Armour lean/Damage output. It just so happens that modifying these traits, alongside extra effects like spell boosts and MRM toggles, makes them more attractive for a certain playstyle This is also redundant, the whole statement is just repeating what you quoted me saying; the first 2 sentences are almost verbatim what I said. They might also benefit "Rangers" but rangers aren't the issue, "Rogues" are, and they do not benefit rogues.
quote:
I've never heard anyone call Tank or Glass cannon a sub-build. This discrepancy only adds to the confusion of build identity for Ranger/Rogue. All in all, the comments you've made do a great job of illustrating a major point in my last post: Ranger/Rogue lack a clearly defined identity. We all have slightly different perception of what a Ranger/Rogue should be beyond the math (I won't go into that given the scope of this thread, but feel free to PM me about them). However, that definition has either been lost in the midst of time, or was never clearly defined to begin with. They are sub builds because they can be implemented into any build without degrading the integrity of the build. A warrior is not a mage or a rogue, a mage is not a warrior or a rogue, and a rogue is not a warrior or mage, no matter what; any deviation with thhe exception of beast master is a hybrid. All of them can be tanks if they invest in all the things that I mentioned in the fourth comment you quoted me in. They can all be rangers if they use ranged weapons considering how integral DEX is to almost every build. Its not confusing or difficult, you all make it hard for yourselves because you do stuff like refuse to let go of the false compunction that rogues and rangers are the same even or that all rogues use ranged weapons when someone who plays a rogue is telling you they're not. You all don't even play rogues and are trying to set the standard, that doesn't even make any sense.
Me: *Plays rogue*, "this is how rogues are".
You: *plays some hybrid that has a few rogue like qualities*, "nah, no its not, we don't know how it is"
We don't lack identity, we know what we are, what we're doing, and what we strive for; what we lack is representation and incentive. Because rogues only have scraps (mostly in regards to armors), there's no incentive for people to make the build, and since most people don't make the build, most people don't play it and therefore don't understand our struggles and don't talk about them. One squeaky wheel can get lost in the ocean of thousands of slightly squeaky wheels.
quote:
However, we need a stat update in order to clearly define what a Ranger/Rogue is in the current system according to the game, and not your perceptions. After all, people have conflicting definitions and perceptions on this matter, that much is obvious.
... simplify or define the game as something superficial, but we need some form of standardised definition in order to move forward. That's why a stat update is so important; It allows us to define and redefine what a Rogue/Ranger is and should be.
(In response to your question directly after this, a user of magic weapons with INT is a mage, unless they also have STR in which case they're a hybrid. You can choose to disagree with me if you wish) If a true definition doesn't exist like you claim, then the perceptions of a subject matter expert should matter more than people completely ignorant to our situation. The answer to the question is that they are a warrior. Maybe they just like the specific effects that said magic weapons provide in combination with their strategy and/or theme, that doesn't make them a mage. You even admitted yourself, any build can use any item, what matters is how much they will benefit from it versus a different item that may or may not align better or worse with the kind of playstyle they strive for.
quote:
Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, a Ranger build should be focusing upon ranged weapons, as should Rogues. Once again, feel free to disagree. At the end of the day, you're not one of us and you won't have to live with the decisions made for us. Stats are not the issue for us no matter how much you think they are for some reason.
quote:
My point here is that we should be redefining what a Ranger/Rogue through a stat update, first and foremost. Any updates that we do see on Ranger Weaponry/Items and such should bear this update in mind, because they risk becoming defunct once it hits. My point is that doing said thing doesn't actually benefit rogues because all that does is MAYBE change the weapons we use not the effectiveness of the build itself. But what do I know, I have just been playing a rogue since 2006..
|
|
|
|
