Smuggler Archive
Thread: Depending On Smugglers
StGabriel wrote:
The story is stupid, but who cares. Swordsman and Fencers DO need a role in the game just as much as Smugglers. This example uses all of the arguments posted against my statement and yet this system, I think, is obviously just obnoxious to other players. If Swordsmen were to suggest such a change I would expect and welcome commentary from players of all professions saying that is simply too obnoxious for their own playstyle. Many systems that players may desire for their professions necessarily impact other professions.
This example is very silly and somewhat satirical but I could easily have come up with a more serious version that would have entailed the same effects. Now imagine 15 professions asking for such changes. I hope you see the point. Changes that add content to one profession at the expense of existing options for other professions will not be "fun" for other professions. Instead of working on such prohibitory systems it will be better to provide new ways in which professions can complement each other. This still allows other professions to have unique abilities, to be desired in groups, etc., but does not require that other professions lose time and "fun" in order to create new content.
End of story, simple enough.
StGabe.
Gabriel, I'm amazed you don't see this. You keep coming from a perspective of "this is a game. Fun comes first" This is infact the root of where the disagreements are coming from. True this is a game but it is a game of a story. Specifically this is Star Wars. Now from your perspective of this being just a game, yes, your points are 100% correct. However, as I said already this is Star Wars. It's part of a story and as such has to follow the story. Now you can make an mmorpg where there are droids, energy weapons, space travel, etc and put the name Star Wars on it but if you make all battles fought on planets with no space combat or make creatures the workhorses of the galaxy with droids being infrequent pets, is it really Star Wars? Obviously no. Why not though? It has all the elements of Star Wars. Simply because it doesn't follow the rules of the story. For this to be STAR WARS: A Galaxy Divided instead of just A Galaxy Divided, it MUST follow the rules of the story. That being established this is how the rules of the story go.
The ruling body of galaxy is the Empire. The Empire is a powerful, opressive, and dangerous dictorship with an equally powerful, opressive, and dangerous dictator. You screw with the empire and you have a high chance of getting killed or causing the death of others. For proof I point out the destruction of Alderan. The peaceful planet screwed with the empire by harboring rebels. A native of the planet, Princess Leia, majorly screwed with the empire by being a leader in the rebellion and stealling the death star plans. As a consequence, Alderan was transformed into small bits of space debris.
The Empire has declared spice and slicing illegal. They have also declared the transportation of spices and illegally modified (sliced) weapons illegal. Just for clarification lets look at the word illegal. According to Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com)
Illegal - : not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
Now that those two story rules have been established we can look at how it applies to this "debate."
Is it really so painful to read opinions that differ from your own?
StGabe.
Gabe's jungle example, while suffering from a serious case of sarcasm and hyperbole, is actually not a bad idea at its core. There's already some slowing terrain in the game -- some call them "hills" -- that certain classes have an advantage in navigating. So there's a precedent for terrain that favors certain classes. But if we're throwing terrain nav bones, they should probably go the Rangers -- for all those skill points burned, that seems like a seriously under-powered class.
The point that Gabe seems to be mis-firing on is that Swordsmen don't really need an extra role, any more than pistoleers, carbineers, or TKAs do -- because it's a COMBAT CLASS. Your "unique role" is that you kill things really well with pointy weapons. You have many unique specials that allow you to kill things in different ways. Smugglers, on the other hand, are a hybrid class -- we forego a signifiant amount of firepower, in return for some non-combat abilities.
What probably burns Gabe is that Swordsman is not "unique", in the sense that there are several other combat classes -- and several other melee classes, that serve a similar purpose. I've never been a melee class, so I don't know how diverse they are -- I know that there's a world of difference between Pistoleers, Carbineers, Riflemen, Commandos, etc., and I would hope that there's a similar diversity amongst melee classes.
The fundamental issue here -- or one of them, as we seem to be approaching a total disconnect -- is the distinction between "Combat Classes", "Crafter Classes", "Support Classes", and "Hybrid Classes". Combat classes have a combat role, crafters have a crafting role, and Support classes have (ta-da) a support role. As a hybrid class, we get a smattering of abilties in each of these disciplines, while not excelling in any of them. I guess I can see where that would draw some envious glances, though anyone that had actually BEEN a smuggler would die laughing at the thought.
StGabriel wrote:
Oh, God willing...
Is it really so painful to read opinions that differ from your own?
StGabe.
I had removed myself from this thread, but I have to comment here.
The pain is in having to reiterate the same points over and over, as though beating our heads against a wall, to try to get people, apparently like you, to actually understand what is being said.
I do not know you personally, and I hope I have not come across as attacking you. That is not my intention. However, you seem to be completely incapable of comprehending that which is being stated, logically and with supportive arguments. This is where the perceived "pain" comes from. I welcome differing opinions and the chance to debate. You have not provided that because everything you have stated does not take into account the nature of this "debate."
I'll urge you one last time to go back, read my first response to you in its entirety, quote it, and respond to each point. Then we can see if you can provide an argument that holds water.
I'm removing myself yet again from this thread, and hopefully will not feel the need to comment yet another time.
I am making rather an effort to respond to as many replies as I can.
You don't see my point and I don't see yours. I'm trying hard not to assume that this is because you don't have one and am really making an effort to read and consider all replies and consider the option that I may indeed be wrong.
As originally posted, this is an attempt to foment discussion and not discord and to understand your viewpoint as well as putting forth mine. I'm not demanding that anyone agree with me but I'd hope that you at least try to understand me.
StGabe.
Slicing is a likely target for contraband scans. Many here have tried to convince me that using sliced weapons and such is simply a "choice" that I make. I am trying to point out that if the contraband is too be powerful enough to provide advantages on the order of 500% then it will not really be a choice when competing with other players.
There is a give and take here. As contraband is less powerful it is more reasonable to imply restrictions on it. As contraband is more powerful it is less reasonable to do this and there are more balance issues involved.
I am addressing specifically slicing here as a contraband item however the same argument applies to any item that is powerful. Armor is incredibly powerful (as the game stands) and because of this I have used it for my "jungle" example. I think it rather unreasonable to hinge its usage on having a swordsman with you at all times (or being willing to undergo the regular hassle of long delays and potential death).
StGabe.
Gabe, I am quite capable of seeing opinions different than my own. As a design professional (architect) in real life, there is a great deal of dialogue between clients and architects. When I present an initial response to a design challenge, I am met with feedback from the client that helps me better understand the needs, desires and budgets, all in turn to allow me to come up with a much better design for the next go around in the studio. Another meeting will generate more information, until the design is considered acceptable. It's called cooperation.
You've come in here with an initial post. Several people have outlined, in my opinion very neatly, whyyour way of thinkingcould be a problem for our profession later on, and then went on to back up arguments why we should do as what our professional name says. You've continually harped on the same ideas, not lending anything to back up your side. In a case like this, cooperation is not occuring and it's best to just let it go.
We're fighting for our class, and you're telling us to lie down and die. In fact, with your recentintervention in the Panic Shot nerf, you're helping the killer, not us. Maybe if you'd acknowledge that we need help and render some assistance in getting it for this class, rather than have a track record of A) getting us more broken, and B) enraging this forum by posting such things like this thread, you'd get more respect.
You're not going to get all of us to "see your way of thinking" because we play the class and have distinct ideas as to what will make it more fun for US. What you are proposing is akin to me asking for the artisans make a one use "craft anything" kit in case I need something and an artisan isn't around to make it for me. For example, when my vehicle gets destroyed when I am out in the wild. I need a replacement, but lo and behold, there's no artisan around for me to buy one off of. But that's OK, I have this kit I bought, so I'll just make a swoop...no wait, I'll make a speederbike. I really don't think that the artisans would appreciate that idea, either.
I think that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, Gaby.