Fencer Archive
Thread: CU info!!! :D :D :D
But SWG = EQ2 and i will have to quit
Warpa wrote:If it turns into a Starwars version of EQ2 im outa here, im happy with the game as it is (must be the only one lol) all i would like is more quests, new NPC's, new weapons and a couple of new planets
Oh, just wait and see how things go with the CU before you make any rash decisions
The announced changes aren't even guaranteed to be the actual changes, as a matter of fact. I plan on giving the CU a full workout before I say anything regarding wether or not I like it.
I did notice one thing that has me a little perplexed. Fencer will now require both onehanded and unarmed trees in brawler. It's no skin off my neck, as I already have that tree. But can anyone venture as guess as to why it will be a requirement? Have anything to do with dual weilding maybe? Or maybe just that some of our specials include kicks/punches?
So some may say its more like 'real' life, and you wont just be able to sit there spamming your specials, but it is only a game, SWG was designed the way it is, EQ the way that is. If its to be more life like, then my peice of salvaged metal that has been crafted into a weapon called a gaffi stick will be laughable against an AT-ST, and one swipe from the tail of a GDK will crack every bone in my 'body'
Its just my view here, but i like to be able to get big buffs and play solo, i like to join groups to hunt ancient krayts, i like to migrate my stats to help my chosen proffesions, thats the beauty of SWG for me, you can determine for yourself how good your char will be.
Still....bring it on, only when it goes live can anything really be said, and there will be feedback from players saying what does and doesnt work.
Minerunner wrote:
No this isn't.
You tease
Hey, do you have any thoughts as to why fencer will require the unarmed brawler line as well?
Mcgreag wrote:
Didn't the post tell that? They want to even out the SP cost for most combat profs, that means lowering it for some (commando/BH) and raising it for others. One of the goal being that none can master 3 combat profs (to make sure you won't have templets that can take on any opponent and you need to group.
If that's a response to my question, I still don't get it. They could have simply raised the requirements rather than make me grind a tree that I don't want.
It that wasn't a response to my question, then forget I responded to your respone
Fix the armor game = perfect.
im renaming the devs retarded-blind-rats-with-one-foot-for-typing.
I8TheWorm wrote:
Mcgreag wrote:
Didn't the post tell that? They want to even out the SP cost for most combat profs, that means lowering it for some (commando/BH) and raising it for others. One of the goal being that none can master 3 combat profs (to make sure you won't have templets that can take on any opponent and you need to group.
If that's a response to my question, I still don't get it. They could have simply raised the requirements rather than make me grind a tree that I don't want.
It that wasn't a response to my question, then forget I responded to your respone
Not sure if that was a response to your question, or if it was a response to your response, but my response has no bearing on your response or their response. If i were to respond to your question, i would first need to hear their response, then possibly respond myself to their response and then to yours. If you feel you need to repond to this response, remember its not a response as there was nothing to respond to, when i see a previous response i will respond.
Hope this clears that up.
Warpa wrote:
I8TheWorm wrote:
Mcgreag wrote:
Didn't the post tell that? They want to even out the SP cost for most combat profs, that means lowering it for some (commando/BH) and raising it for others. One of the goal being that none can master 3 combat profs (to make sure you won't have templets that can take on any opponent and you need to group.
If that's a response to my question, I still don't get it. They could have simply raised the requirements rather than make me grind a tree that I don't want.
It that wasn't a response to my question, then forget I responded to your responeNot sure if that was a response to your question, or if it was a response to your response, but my response has no bearing on your response or their response. If i were to respond to your question, i would first need to hear their response, then possibly respond myself to their response and then to yours. If you feel you need to repond to this response, remember its not a response as there was nothing to respond to, when i see a previous response i will respond.
Hope this clears that up.
Hehe, were you ever a writer for Monty Python?