Fencer Archive

1: I personally love the stuff. (with one exception)
2: I'm fighting tooth and nail to change the Melee Requirements overall to be dynamic rather than static besides the specific basic line.

Meaning this stuff meshes with what I already knew, and know of what Fencers are going to be and it will work beautifully, however while I think it's fine to raise the skill point cost of getting to Novice Fencer I think the requirment which fulfills that should be players choice rather than unarmed line.

Basically I'd like to see...

Novice Brawler + One handed 1 thru 4 + [any other brawler line] 1 thru 4 = Novice Fencer

In short in addition to what I know that hasn't been released yet... (sadly a whole lot)... I think the information released in Blair's post and how it will better the game is phenominal and I think you guys will be really stoaked about the overall idea.

All of this it is going to produce a much more "tactical" and situational combat environment... where one specific move is not the end all be all.

If anyone has any specific questions or concerns about the information Blair released please feel free to ask here.

---

Minerunner wrote:
1: I personally love the stuff. (with one exception)
2: I'm fighting tooth and nail to change the Melee Requirements overall to be dynamic rather than static besides the specific basic line.

Meaning this stuff meshes with what I already knew, and know of what Fencers are going to be and it will work beautifully, however while I think it's fine to raise the skill point cost of getting to Novice Fencer I think the requirment which fulfills that should be players choice rather than unarmed line.

Basically I'd like to see...

Novice Brawler + One handed 1 thru 4 + [any other brawler line] 1 thru 4 = Novice Fencer

In short in addition to what I know that hasn't been released yet... (sadly a whole lot)... I think the information released in Blair's post and how it will better the game is phenominal and I think you guys will be really stoaked about the overall idea.

All of this it is going to produce a much more "tactical" and situational combat environment... where one specific move is not the end all be all.

If anyone has any specific questions or concerns about the information Blair released please feel free to ask here.

---

Personally I'm not effected by the change either, however I do think their designs would be better served by putting in a generic line requirement (like the ranged professions) OR by makeing it a dynamic line requirment (meaning any second brawler line would suffice).

I can't say anything specific about the CU weapons as the information has not been released for the public, but the devs really like makeing schematic drops/rewards for quests so I suspect we'll see most of them enter the game as part of quests like the Scythe (limited use quested schematics) or RIS (pemanent use quested schematics).

And I'm very happy that all the CU weapons for Fencers released publicly are swords... see they did listen.

I think Greenmarine posted a long time ago that he would like to see it possible for alot of profs to have that generic option for their novice elite profs however there were technical difficulties surrounding it and they couldn't do it.

Also if they did that then they would likely make it possible to master 3 elite profs again which i know is something they don't want.

I like that all the weapons are swords too, though i'd like a crossbow


I like alot of the changes that were posted except the crafting changes for docs/cms and the HAM changes. There was another mock up of a new ham system that i feel would have made combat much more tactical however i can see them not using it because it'd make combat longer not shorter as is their intention.

All the changes in the CU haven't been posted yet and i still feel that more people are going to leave this game than they expect, alot of people like how the game is now because its so complex and personally it makes it for a much more adult game in my opinion. The children can't advance in the game much or get frustrated too much, i like the fact that i am good at PvP because i KNOW the system, but its starwars so i'll prolly stay *shrug*

On the Tripple Master thing... the idea that that is overpowered in some way is catagorically false. Not a single UBER template includes tripple elite melee master. And that isn't going to change based on the docs I've seen.

It's always going to be in peoples best interest to NOT tripple master.

It may be impossible, however if it is there should be a fifth "Melee Support" line added if they are going to make a second line requirement for the Melee Elites... otherwise it just makes no sense and is not in keeping with the spirit of the game.

---

wildcard1973 wrote:

YOu could always try to get them to combine 1-haned and 2-handed...animations would rely on the type of weapon equiped..you'd have Unarmed, Swordsman and Pikeman..with Swordsmen being masters of one-handed and two-handed swords...then you could add a Melee support line to brawler.

---

That isn't possible given the direction they've gone with Profession roles... Fencer and Swordsman are radically different roles... and thus cannot be combined. Nor would I suspect most Swordsman or Fencers wish to be lumped in together, thus it would likely cause far more of a problem with the playerbase than this one.

What about making the prereq for TK master brawler and converting the unarmed tree into a general melee combat tree?

---

JuggernautRM wrote:
What about making the prereq for TK master brawler and converting the unarmed tree into a general melee combat tree?

---

---

kAotiC_HeRo wrote:

Instead of requiring Unarmed IV (Which fencer's use weapons and not their hands), I would MUCH rather see them incorporate a GENERIC Melee Tree to prerequisite Fencer and the others. It just seems stupid to incorporate 4 boxes that are not needed for a profession... If they are going to kill stacking ( I am actually not affected what so ever because TK is part of my build.) However, Subtle increases to SP requisites should be done in a fashion with a GENERIC Melee tree specifically for those people wanting to mix melee it up.

That, and How are the CU weapons going to incorporate into this new system?

---

I like the idea of the new special attacks system, it works well in other games and should work well here.

Like a lot of people, it just doesn't make sense to me that we have to train this other Brawler tree to be a Fencer. It's such an arbitrary and ridiculous way of trying to prevent triple Masteries that I can't see why they didn't do something that makes sense.

But as a whole it looks good to me so far.

O.

---

kAotiC_HeRo wrote:

Instead of requiring Unarmed IV (Which fencer's use weapons and not their hands), I would MUCH rather see them incorporate a GENERIC Melee Tree to prerequisite Fencer and the others. It just seems stupid to incorporate 4 boxes that are not needed for a profession... If they are going to kill stacking ( I am actually not affected what so ever because TK is part of my build.) However, Subtle increases to SP requisites should be done in a fashion with a GENERIC Melee tree specifically for those people wanting to mix melee it up.

That, and How are the CU weapons going to incorporate into this new system?

---

Have you ever watched any of the fencer animations though? I kick and swing hands while beating the pulp out of folks. However, MR's strongest comment in his post was this..

All of this it is going to produce a much more "tactical" and situational combat environment... where one specific move is not the end all be all.

We're all going to have to make some decisions come CU time. Some professions have more to scream about than we do. But the reality of it is we're getting what we asked for... more balance and realism regarding our toons and professions. Change is difficult. Your best bet is to roll with the punches and pretend this is really SWG 2.0.