Nuker Poll

[Extreme]

Will nukers be Mages, Hunters(Rogues), Assassins or others?

Lets bring this up and discussing which and classes and how the the most people would like to nukers be, giving a general opinion to dev's..

Choose which one you prefer and also discuss how you'd like the nukers to be. Note that dev's will not use this poll as a point to be made, they will see how they can fit our opinion in the game.

[Zigkirby]

This thread implies there will be WoW style raids where you sit in one place and mash buttons. All archetypes should be able to do at least moderate damage and have utility.

[Lyllyth]

Well, considering "Nuke" usually refers to a massive single hit, offensive Spell-slingers should be the "Nukers", if you will.

btw, "Thieves" not "Theifs"

[silenced]

since when is a thief an assassin ? did i miss something ?

a thief steals stuff, an assassin kills stuff ... at least that's what we got told at "school"

[Traceur]

other: siege weapon handlers.

[Veith]

@traceur i think also if (the stone of) an onager hits you it should be a real final hit, and all singlechar handeable damage should nearly similar.

Why an assassin with a dagger should make more damage than a huge warrior with a big hammer? Thats false realisation.
The hit and the ability to place a hit is the reason for success, not the used weapon, if a weapon is designed as weapon its deadly as any weapon, except you are not trained in the right way, but then you are perhaps no warrior or using the false weapon. But trained in a weapon and you are deadly in fight.
But an axefighter is as deadly as a sword- or speerfighter or archer, he must hit thats the important aspect in fight and not the ability to decrease with a weapon 100HP or 200HP. And if he has an uneffective weapon then he should train another. So i demand ingame all weapons as effective weapons and scrap should be placed to scrap, must not be designed.

[admiralnlson]

I agree with Traceur and Veith, as always.

Others -> siege weapons.
And whoever comes up with a way to do a lot of damage in a short period of time, using whatever he has at his disposal: character skills combination, equipment, tactics/ruse, ... => player skill in general.

[Vanndal]

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

And whoever comes up with a way to do a lot of damage in a short period of time, using whatever he has at his disposal: character skills combination, equipment, tactics/ruse, ... => player skill in general.

Completely agree with that statement, but adding a little more.

I don't really like the idea of "Nuke". Nuke generally means 1 massive damaging hit, and in a sense it could be useful to turn the tides of a battle, but to be able to perform it right off the bat is not exactly entertaining for the receiving end.

So I kind of think heavily damaging techniques should either be counters, or heavy channeled spells (of course heavy channeled spells would more then likely be stronger since it takes a lot more planning or protection). Anything thats in general extremely easy to execute (be it a instant skill or a skill without a condition to be met) without much thought is not exactly a great idea for a nuke IMO.

Also I hands down HATE 1 hit kill techniques.

[stygiant]

I completely agree with Vanndal.

I say let the nukers not come to MO. Nuking is for those who don't know how to fight real battles and rely on a 2-shot opener to kill someone and then run for their lives.

[catmorbid]

Well... A person with a very large hammer swung at person's skull should be able to achieve quite devastating end-results. Equally, a spell caster who summons a meteor from the sky should also be able to kill pretty much anything with one hit. And also, as stated, the person handling the ballista should pretty much one-shot any humanoid (if he hits them). Then again, a dagger should be quite effective versus an unprotected throat or any other body part with large arteries. And why should a spear stuck at the heart be any worse to a broadsword in the gut or an arrow in the throat?

But... Just because I'd like to see very powerful (and difficult) magic, I'd vote for the dedicated offensive magic user.

[patamon]

i think a nuker class can be prevented. just make different tipes of armor and damage..somethink like in Warcraft 3 but even better.
just make for exeple some armor classes like clotes -no armor bonur or jus bonus against frost ar weather, clothers with leather or metal parts- a wery light armor protekting against smaller swords or clubs, no good protection against arrows or better weapons, common protection against magic. cotton armor - something like ermors witch had been weared by astek wariors, a cotton hardened wit salt wather to somethink like a bullet proof vest, a clasis leather armor, leather armor with metal parts, chain mails, plate armor and bone armors - made from animal bones and horns.
so an here the pro and contra to every armor:

cotton armor - wery strong against arrows, spears, dagers , trowing weapons and piercing and lightning spells , normal protection aganst swords, clubs and cutting weapons and frost magic, weak against fire magic axes and hammers

lether armor - good against dagers and other cut weapons like seabers, good against fire frost or lightning magic, normal protection against swords, spears axes or arrows aslo normal against piersing magic, weak protektion against fists maces, clubs, hamers, atacks with shields and smashing magic spells


leather armor with metal parts - increasing the leather armor protekcion against swords and axes, little better against arows and piercing magic, but decreased defens against fire and lightning magic,


chain mail - good protection against swords, dagers, cutting weapons, normal protection against axes, maces, hammers and frost and smashing magic, weak against arrows, spears, piersing, fire or lightning magic

plate mail - wery wery srong against arrows ang spears /near perfekt protection/, good protection against swords and axes, normal against smashing and piercing magic and frost magic, weak against maces, fire and lightning magic almost unprotected against assasin ataks with deadly strikes with dagges or other small weapons /only when used as killing skill or atack from behind or "from shadows" /

bone armors - strong against , hammers and maces, swords, cutting weapons lightning, fire and smashing, normal protection against axes, arrows , dagers and frost magic weak against spears and piercing magic


so no one will be a nuke when e find somebody who wear a fine armor witch wil bee better against his weapon, and if it is eawen someone who fight efective against his armor he wil take more damage, materials for armors shoud not be wearen by classes so every class woud have her ownd bone, achain, plate and lether armors and every player woud choose witch kind he will wear in battle so the battles woud be more interesting becase everyone would have t think not only abouth a class he is efektive but even to change a strategy on the battelfield because of armors witch the enemy wear.
for exaple...no one woud send a rander to atack a mage if he is wearing plate cotton armor or plate armor, and if i wear a plate aromor i have take care of assasins not to get too close to them, and if i have a spear as a weapon i will search for a targer in a bone or chain armor and not for someone who i wearing plate.

[Lyllyth]

So, now we're at the point of "No Healers", "No Tanks", "No Nukers"...

[silenced]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Sbd0idLe6Q ...

=), i want nukes !


fluke so roxx !

[Lyllyth]

NSFW!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CrU9tVQmL1c
NSFW!!


>=)~

[Vanndal]

Tanks haven't been discussed yet, and it seems like people don't especially care atm.

Healer seems to be 2/3 Pro-healer, and 1/3 Anti-Healer in general.

Nuker seems to be half and half, with half the people for the 1 shot kill techniques, and half the people against 1 shot kill techniques.

And now the poll is almost like saying "who should get the 1 shot kill techniques".

[Quan]

Mages are the true nuker, they had a nice range and magic is the only nice style to do damage

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

Tanks haven't been discussed yet, and it seems like people don't especially care atm.

Tanks have been discussed.

It has been agreed that taunts are a ridiculous mechanic.

No mob should be so stupid that it repeatedly hits a taunting heavy-armored guy with zero damage, when it could just beat down the fragile ones who are either damaging it a lot or healing the heavy-armored guy.

[Lyllyth]

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

Tanks have been discussed.

It has been agreed that taunts are a ridiculous mechanic.

No mob should be so stupid that it repeatedly hits a taunting heavy-armored guy with zero damage, when it could just beat down the fragile ones who are either damaging it a lot or healing the heavy-armored guy.

I believe we came to the agreement that Taunting, as has been used in previous games, is badly implemented.

Taunting should be a skill where the taunter develops the knowledge of how to incite a kind of Focused Rage in his/her target. But there should be limitations, such as; The taunter should be required to speak the language of the Target. The taunter should also have some developed ability/skill to ascertain what "buttons" to press on this target to drive them crazy.
Now, there are obvious counters to Taunting, perhaps a "Discipline" skill that allows one to remain in control of self, so to speak.

Since Taunting is, in general, only used in PvE, the Discipline skill could fall under the topic of Creatures developing skills on their own.
Looking at "Taunting" in this fashion, one could come up with ways that it could be a functional ability to use in PvP, I'm not talking about forcing a Player to focus on the taunter, but you should be able to come up with different ways in which it could affect the target.

[Zigkirby]

Originally Posted by Lyllyth

I believe we came to the agreement that Taunting, as has been used in previous games, is badly implemented.

Taunting should be a skill where the taunter develops the knowledge of how to incite a kind of Focused Rage in his/her target. But there should be limitations, such as; The taunter should be required to speak the language of the Target. The taunter should also have some developed ability/skill to ascertain what "buttons" to press on this target to drive them crazy.
Now, there are obvious counters to Taunting, perhaps a "Discipline" skill that allows one to remain in control of self, so to speak.

Since Taunting is, in general, only used in PvE, the Discipline skill could fall under the topic of Creatures developing skills on their own.
Looking at "Taunting" in this fashion, one could come up with ways that it could be a functional ability to use in PvP, I'm not talking about forcing a Player to focus on the taunter, but you should be able to come up with different ways in which it could affect the target.

AI's should not be able to be taunted. Have it take out what it perceives to be the biggest threat (never the "tank") and stick on it. Be it the cleric, mage, or rogue. If tanking is introduced it has better be a type of actual threat. A target should "want" to get rid of the "tank", and not because the tank called his mother fat. A tank should have skills that punish a target for not facing him, knockdowns, pushes, and other things that would fall into the category of battlefield control, it should under no circumstances be artificial, because this way tanks become good in PvP as well as PvE.

[catmorbid]

Considering tanks:
Did it ever occur to anyone, that the term "tank" is actually awfully wrong? Real tanks wield incredibly heavy armor and incredible firepower, and in fact the only thing capable of penetrating their armor is another of their kind. A medieval version of a "tank" would probably be closer to a heavily armored horseman with a lance, than some random idiot with so heavy armor they barely have the strength to swing their sword

A personal remark: I just hate that term in MMOs.

[Unomat]

Only two entities are capable of dealing the ultimate punishment:
1) Mob justice
2) GMs

[Veith]

Originally Posted by catmorbid

Considering tanks:
Did it ever occur to anyone, that the term "tank" is actually awfully wrong? Real tanks wield incredibly heavy armor and incredible firepower, and in fact the only thing capable of penetrating their armor is another of their kind. A medieval version of a "tank" would probably be closer to a heavily armored horseman with a lance, than some random idiot with so heavy armor they barely have the strength to swing their sword

A personal remark: I just hate that term in MMOs.

Such tanks would not exist for 'real' combat. Tank is anyway totally false used term, its only MMORPG, absolutely; either its a 'faster' than footsodlier vehicle or a fantasyknight/warrior, but a real knight for battle is the charger par excellence also unmounted. So fantasytanks are only bad design, not more. Ending in itself . Folks only see some curious jousting armor and thinking thats knights armor. If someone wants real combat fantasytanks are scrap, nonsense, cannot exist. I hate also not only the term, because its stupid construction for bad realised gameplay. I thought for one game, ok some fools designed such lumpish design sure for next games there will be a bit more thought about. But no.....
You could also design an animated cucumber for combat and call it tank its absolutely same believable than a fantasytank with such only called armor. Its a possible to walk tower, but not a warrior.

[golani79]

I dont think that there should be the "one" nuker class.

Every class should be able to do damage - depending on the skills in which the char was trained.
I´d prefer it if I could play a char on different sides instead of saying - oh I´ve chosen an archer/mage so now I am a nuker.

It should pretend on how that character would be skilled - I think that way there are a lot of charactar variations possible without being always nearly the same as another player with the same class.

Therfore I´ve voted for nothing.

[patamon]

i think if somebody shoud have some real nukers tendences it shoud by someone who has a big disadvantage in other aspekts. i think that anuker class shoud be a thief clas or assasins..or somethink like that..they shoud have abig damage perhaps a one kill technick...but just if it woud be played by skilled player and the dissadvantage of it shoud be the possibility to fail the atack or to be discoveret and eliminated and after the powerfull atack the thief will be discovered and woud be lightly killed by the player he atacked or other characters near by, so a thiev woud need to use this "nuke" ataks only once in a perion of time,lets say perhaps 1 in 2 minutes.

[Jutsin]

I'm with Vanndal on this one - I'm playing AoC at the moment, and one of the most ridiculous aspects of it is the spike/nuke damage of certain classes.

I don't see how 1 or 2 shotting someone can be considered fun on either end?

PvP should still be fast-paced, but above all else it should be mentally engaging. Spamming your main "I Win" combo or spell just so you can get a clean 1 or 2 shot kill on your opponent ruins combat, IMO. It's cheap, and not exactly skillful (not saying that there is no skill involved at all .. but NOT being able to 1-2 shot someone would require you to use more skill to take someone out .. again, IMO).

[ccoa]

I beleive we should leave the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missles to the nuking and leave the fighting to the player.