New warrior skill.

[Hot_Dancer]

Doesn't sound useful. If you're fighting against more than one opponent your character has probably made a critical tactical error or enjoys flirting with the mantis head.

That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented as it doesn't seem unbalancing.  With a new day of stamina conservation for warriors(especially for desert elves!) on the way, I'd really doubt it would see much use. There's simply more bold and efficient moves to do.

Hot_Dancer

[Cale_Knight]

As a warrior enthusiast, I have to say I don't really like this idea, and for a few reasons.

1) It wouldn't be terribly useful. At the cost of lots of stamina, and putting myself at great risk, I might get one or two extra attacks. Not worth it at all. If I really, really need to damage someone I'm not engaged with, I'll change my opponents.

2) Way too "fantasy combat" for my tastes, as others have mentioned. Just doesn't seem realistic.

I want to see warriors get a way to neutralize shields, and I really like Intrepid's "riposte" idea.

[UnderSeven]

Skills in general add a lot to the game, actually.

It's not about kicking ass, it's the way your specific asskicker kicks ass.
A large amount of skills for any class allows you to pick and choose the
methodology your character would employ for any given thing.

I remember years ago that I suggested Archery for Assassins and was
laughed at...but why not be a sniper?  Coat your arrows in poison?  Fire
them from a concealed higher ground and run like hell?  Someone along
the line agreed, and the rest is history.

What you do is the skill.  How you do it composes the choices you make
when defining your character--ie, roleplaying.

No.  Skills do not add a lot to the game, well thought out skills add a lot to the game.  

For instance, we could add a skill that allowed assasins to get two backstabs for the price of one, I believe it's called 'circle stab' on many games.  Just think, they have two knives like?  So why not let them use them both, one knife in the small of your back and another knife across the throat! It makes perfect sense.  Or how about a warrior skill called third, fourth and fifth attack, where their skill in weapons make them able to better balance their attacks and increase them many times fold.  

All of the above mentioned skills exist on other games.  Would they be good for armageddon NO!  Incase you didn't get it, I was kidding about all of the above skills, because they are Hack slash tactical skills for a game that is about pk and combat.  This is not arm.  

What does a skill like twirl do for the game? It gives warriors another command to spam, and makes them more powerful and less realistic. Warriors are not comic book super heros.  you have to assume everyone in a fight is going to do everything they can to win.  If someone twirls their weapon, it's just not feasable to use in a fight except for showing off or intimidating, you give it a try, see how well it works for you, say maybe stick fight with three of your friends, then when your third frield simply circles around you to behind, see how well it works.. Hint: It won't.

Skills do NOT equal rp.  Emotes do not equal rp, code does not equal rp, code is there to help facilitate rp.  Mushes have fine rp and no skills.. Am I comparing arm to a mush or saying we should make it more mushlike? No, but I am shooting down the arguement that somehow using skills or using emoting is good rp or rp at all in it of itself.  It isn't.

Bottom line, skills can help or hurt the game, depending on what they do for the game.  If you want to play a game that has tactical fighting as a focal point of the game, there are lots out there, they're called pk and hack slash games.

[Intrepid]

No.  Skills do not add a lot to the game, well thought out skills add a lot to the game.

The difference in the word choice is a matter of opinion.  I would hope you
would have a little more respect for other opinions and ideas than what
you appear to be exhibiting currently...

For instance, we could add a skill that allowed assasins to get two backstabs for the price of one, I believe it's called 'circle stab' on many games.  Just think, they have two knives like?  So why not let them use them both, one knife in the small of your back and another knife across the throat! It makes perfect sense.  Or how about a warrior skill called third, fourth and fifth attack, where their skill in weapons make them able to better balance their attacks and increase them many times fold.

Actually, you're grossly misinterpreting what I wrote.  It has nothing to do
with =omgomgomgpwngwtfbbqstfu!= it pertains primarily to the idea of
multiple skills and new ideas not necessarily being a bad thing.  I never
said I personally wanted this skill in circulation.  In fact, if you read back
through the thread, I suggested that it it was implemented, it should be
one of the last skills a warrior branches--not that I personally endorsed it.

All of the above mentioned skills exist on other games.  Would they be good for armageddon NO!  Incase you didn't get it, I was kidding about all of the above skills, because they are Hack slash tactical skills for a game that is about pk and combat.  This is not arm.

Condescending to me isn't really going to help any argument you make,
other than render it more like the words of a paranoid alarmist.  I invite
you, instead of making personal attacks on my understanding of the
game, to re-examine my thoughts from a more general standpoint.  I've
been in this game as long as you have.  I understand it well enough,
believe me.  I have no need to "get it".  

What does a skill like twirl do for the game? It gives warriors another command to spam, and makes them more powerful and less realistic. Warriors are not comic book super heros.  you have to assume everyone in a fight is going to do everything they can to win.  If someone twirls their weapon, it's just not feasable to use in a fight except for showing off or intimidating, you give it a try, see how well it works for you, say maybe stick fight with three of your friends, then when your third frield simply circles around you to behind, see how well it works.. Hint: It won't.

So now you condescend to original author who is only trying to make a
contribution to the game during a time when our ideas are hitting the
screen almost as fast as we can provide them.  Why not have a little more
respect and trust in both the playerbase and the imms to have the best
interests of the game in mind?  No one is looking for "pwnage" and no one
here is trying to break Armageddon.  Hint: Respect is what's for dinner.

Skills do NOT equal rp.  Emotes do not equal rp, code does not equal rp, code is there to help facilitate rp.  Mushes have fine rp and no skills.. Am I comparing arm to a mush or saying we should make it more mushlike? No, but I am shooting down the arguement that somehow using skills or using emoting is good rp or rp at all in it of itself.  It isn't.

There are thousands of roleplay mushes.  I chose to log in to a mud that
has code to back the actions of roleplay.  I never claimed any one aspect
ever equated solely to roleplay.  Choices and customization are the things
that make your character different from the 1,000 other clones of it that
have ever existed.  And in all honesty, I never liked mushes.  I don't like
the idea of redoing a scene and I don't like the idea having to decide and
adjudicate any decision made from on high.  The game here can run on
automatic with imm maintenance and rarely require an imm stepping in.
I think you'll find that you're shooting at empty air here, as you've again
misinterpreted the concept behind my post.

Bottom line, skills can help or hurt the game, depending on what they do for the game.  If you want to play a game that has tactical fighting as a focal point of the game, there are lots out there, they're called pk and hack slash games.

No, the bottom line is this: You have resentment for either players, the
staff or both, and you decided to take it out on me this fine day.  If you
have a problem with us, you might want to consult that list of tactical
games you find yourself preaching off to me and relocate.

I would thank you to have a little bit more courtesy to myself and other
posters here in the future.  Someone with as much longevity as you should
remember the old post "Civility and its use in the world".  I suggest you
find and reread it.

[UnderSeven]

I realize that I used quote in my previous post which may of made it seem like I was only talking to you intrepid, but that was not my aim.  I apologize for hitting a nerve, however offending people is not my goal, trying to make a point is.  It's very hard to argue a point, specifically one contrary to someone else's oppinion without rubbing them a little brashly.  I try very hard to keep my posts from attacking people personally and only going after ideas and thoughts and presenting my views why I think they are good or bad.  

That having been said I am sorry for offending you or anyone else.  I do however stand by my post.  I think telling me that I am disrespecting the players of this game and staff is however ludicrus and I'm not even going to comment further on that.  Think that if you want, say what you want on that, I dont care.

As far as the initial suggestion goes, I've said my peace on it.  Some good, some bad, more bad apparently, but My ultimate view, which is contrary and going to rub against other views is this:

I do not feel the game needs combat skills, if anything it needs to balance out the ones it already has.  Warriors starting out are the strongest fighting class. Warriors who are actually at the end of their skill tree is an ungodly warrior class.  Trust me on this one, a warrior currently, minus added additional end tree skills are gods.  Or don't take my word for it, instead just consider brand new warriors in clans who are owning everyone else on their base stats and skills alone.  This is not a class that needs help.  If we're going to consider more skills, I think we need to consider more skills to make mundane play and regular day lives more interesting.  Crafting and so on.  

There are so many dynamic edges to combat in this game, that I highly doubt too many peoplee have realized all of them.  From what i've heard, I'm certain I have not.  There is a lot of code that goes into the current game combat skills, a lot of behind the scenes stuff, Should we be making it more when already so much of it goes undiscovered?  I'm not convinced.

As far as disrespecting posters go, in order to disagree, present a case, argue with points, you have to go against other people's.  This can be taken as a personal insult or it can not.  I encorage people to post their ideas, but try to steel yourself against what may occur.

Having re-read my post, I'm sorry if I've offended you, but I'm not taking any of it back.

[Intrepid]

Actually, it's entirely possible and simple to respectfully and intellectually
disagree with other people in a conversation.  That was not what you
were doing, Tetrad.

No one is trying to get your to take back anything.  This isn't a contest, it's
a discussion.  You of all people should know better.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

You know, somebody said that if warriors got more skills and so on, only a warrior would be able to stand against a warrior.

Well, uh, that's the way it should be.

[jhunter]

I beg to differ.  What does these skills add to the game?  Watch adds a lot, thanks to watch we have hemo and all those possibilities, the thief classes have expanded in their need for tactics and yes, group rp.  And Watch may have more options we havn't even fully considered yet.

But warrior skills that make warriors kick more ass than they already do?  Umm.. Excuse me?  Warriors are the undisputable king of the fight.  The only people who would be able to fight a warrior if we keep giving them toys is other warriors.  This would be an imbalance and unlike watch, which is an apples and oranges like comparison, an addition that would do nothing for the rest of the game as a whole.  Just warriors.

The only people who -should- be hanging in a fight with a warrior -is- another warrior. That's exactly as it should be.

I personally think that the addition of stamina drain that pretty much -only- affects warriors does nothing for the rest of the game as a whole.

[RunningMountain]

I was going to say the same thing venomz and hunter said. No one else should be able to melee a warrior but another warrior. Just so its read three times.

[EvilRoeSlade]

You know, somebody said that if warriors got more skills and so on, only a warrior would be able to stand against a warrior.

Well, uh, that's the way it should be.

And the way it already is.  Despite this, there are other classes that require melee combat to function, and thus continually heaping advantage after advantage on the warrior class will unbalance them.

[Armaddict]

No one else should be able to melee a warrior but another warrior.

Or someone who's -better at melee-.

Just because you're a warrior does not mean, that from the beginning, you should be able to stomp people into the dust in melee.  Rangers -can- melee, so can assassins, and even other classes.

The difference is where the masters of each class get to.  A -master- warrior will not be outmelee'd.  That doesn't mean the mediocre warrior who runs into a master ranger should be able to win consistently.  That's just plain ignorant to think.

[RunningMountain]

Stop screaming balance. Rangers can kill with 1 fuckin' arrow if they get good enough, christ.

[Armaddict]

I'm not screaming balance.

I'm stating logic.

And correcting the statement, and/or providing a supplement of...'yes, a -master- warrior will likely be unbeatable in melee.  Not every warrior.'

Calm yourself, RM.

[jhunter]

I still disagree. Logically, a warrior, even a low-skilled one is -still- trained to fight -humanoids- in melee combat. A ranger is designed for hunting -non-humanoid- animals.

It should be no contest logically. No ranger should ever stand a chance in melee against a warrior unless they are a very skilled and exceptional ranger.

It's just plain wrong to think that one who is trained to fight humanoids should commonly be beaten by someone trained to fight beasts in melee. It should be the very rare exceptional ranger that can do this -at all-.

Edited to add: You're bordering on flames Armaddict.

[Armaddict]

I'm not meaning to border on flames, jhunter.  I'm simply stating...it makes sense the way things are.

As for humanoid vs. non-humanoid...IF a man were able to sit there and duke it out in close combat with a bear, he would become suddenly useless when a man who boxes for a living throws a punch?  No.  While different, combat experience leads to combat experience, reactions, and general knowledge.

By your argument, a warrior should likewise never be capable of killing animals the way a ranger can.  Yet we all know they can.

[UnderSeven]

More or less some of you have hit on my stuff, okay I worded it wrong, warriors are the best .. A warrior and ranger of 'equal skill' in a straight up fight the warrior should win.  But does that mean we need to make the warrior stronger?  Ahh no, because warriors are supposed to be the best fighters, that doesn't mean no one else is supposed to be able to compete with them.  Granted one skill or two skills isn't going to make them invincible to other classes, but it a step in that direction.  

Let me bring up another angle.  Consider the fun factor angle.  If warriors had more fancy skills would it be fun to play?  As warriors?  non-warriors would probably start to say screw fighting warriors, it's pointless, I'll just lose no matter what.  So that lets you fight what, other warriors or beasts.  

Yes a max ranger's arrows are nothing short of deadly.  But a maxed warrior's fighting is also deadly.   I don't think this comparison is going to do anything to argue that warriors need new toys.

P.S.
I apologize for the tone of my messages, I'm not trying to flame people, make them feel bad or personally attack them.  If anyone felt that way, it's really not my intention. I don't want people to stop posting their ideas either, anyone whose posted them knows well that it's very intimidating the responses you probably get.  I've been there too.  So I apologize and Kudos to those who have the guts to put it on the line.

[mansa]

Ranger's also had their arrows nerfd.

Or,  should i say, a bug was corrected that didn't take into account armour on the receiver of the arrows.

[spawnloser]

So rangers and warriors aren't nearly as bad ass as they used to be?  ...some of what made them bad ass were bugs?

Great.

Oh, yeah...with my next warrior I plan to get cleave and then great cleave and then supreme cleave.  Screw this whirlwind crap.

[Sir Diealot]

Goddamn right!  

I want my warrior to spawn more Mantis heads than the Hive-Queen thing.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Underseven, can I suggest something?

If you feel too many skills are suggested that make Warriors or Rangers or Halasters too deadly or too unbalanced, suggest or encourage the suggestion of skills for other more ignored classes that help bring back balance in your mind.

I respect your wish to keep the game in balance, but in all honesty, I really don't feel like any of the classes are balanced against one another. I feel like each class is, in its field, the best there is. They are all gears in a machine, and they don't have to equal one another. If this game -was- a H&S, I could understand that viewpoint, but it's not. It's an RPI. Realistic skills, such as RM's idea in moderation, are realistic additions.

In the desert, armor or no armor changes, and with equal playing time, a Ranger will own a Warrior if that Ranger is playing his class right. An Assassin will own any other combat class in the city and in the right circumstances, because that is what they do best. And a Warrior will own any class in a hand-to-hand fight, and that's the way it is.

That's the way it always should be, as long as we have classes.

[Bebop]

I no like.

People aren't going to stop their oncoming attacks for you to "whirlwind" them all.  Reminds me of like a magicker attack or like old school RPGs luminare everyone in the square *vhoom!*

[jhunter]

They are all gears in a machine, and they don't have to equal one another.

No they don't have to be equal to one another. I agree with that, they do each have their own areas of expertise and they should be the best at it.

They -do- have to live in the same world where physics should be the same for all of them regardless of guild. If warriors experience stamina drain (even if it's only for the use of some of their combat skills) I think that all pcs should feel the effects of stamina drain in combat. The main problem is, it makes stamina count -more- for a warrior pc in combat than it does for any other non-warrior pc in combat. That is -not- applying the same physical affects on all pcs regardless of guild.

Realistically, stamina would count for -anyone- in combat. They say that the change was made to prevent people from spamming those commands and to make it more realistic but it only makes the other guilds -more- unrealistic in comparison.

It is IMO, like applying the use of movement points/hit points/stun points..etc.. to only one guild and none of the rest.

[spawnloser]

My biggest concern is that the game recognizes your character attacking one person.  That is your target.  When you 'kick' when in combat, you automatically target that person.  Can the game recognize, for your character, all hostiles and seperate them from all non-hostiles?  I don't know the code nearly well enough to know if this is the case or not.  If not, this attack may be like some other effects in the game where it hits all friendlies and non-friendlies alike.

[valakas]

I like the idea ,but not that much of a hit all people fight you skill... I would like for master warriors to hit maybe 2 people at a time or somthing like that.


With a large weapon say... a great sword you have a random chance to hit more then one person. You swing with the great sword you kill one guy and the swing passes though the first guy and hits the second. With a large weapon like the great sword if you kill one person and you are fighting two you have a random chance to hit the second.

Or with you duel whielders you have a skill that you can use to hit two people at the same time ,but one of them (the one with a high weapon skill of whatever they are using) auto attacks you. The attack is not a free attack ,but just a normal attack.

Again this should be for master warriors only.

Theese are just my thoughts.

[Anarchy]

How about, as a trade off, we give warriors an automatic skill called "Counter" or some such, when dealing with multi opponents.

In a nut shell, when fighting more then one person - for every attack a warrior manages to parry, they get a free hit to whomever it is that is now "off guard" regardless if they are not the ones they are targetting in combat.