Go back to previous topic
Forum Name Gameplay
Topic subjectDo we need more specs for warriors?
Topic URLhttps://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=3492
3492, Do we need more specs for warriors?
Posted by Circuits Edge on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Yes I know, warriors just got legacies recently, and that's all fine and dandy, but, the specs have remained the same for a number of years now, and really, unlike with some classes, shifters in particular, you're never really surprised.

Are there any plans to perhaps remove some spec skills and add new ones, or even add a new weapon to specialize in? You can mix the specs anyway you choose with races that they would never work with, but they're still the same old specs.

Warriors are pretty low on the priority list I wager, but they are still one of the most linear classes up till legacies.
3515, I think specs are fine just as they are.
Posted by Vladamir on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
No one spec is really in need of an overhaul (Since H@H was tweaked) and I think they all balance fairly well with the others in terms of functionality and lethality. Does this mean every specs first skill makes one a powerhouse? No. But when you match two lvl 40, uncaballed warriors up, who both know their business, I think it's even money on who will win. That in and of itself tells me things are balanced (Spec wise. Power of class vs class is another matter), therefore fine.

If any class needs tweaking, I think it's the berserkers. Warriors IMHO are spiffy as they are.
3504, RE: Do we need more specs for warriors?
Posted by Valguarnera on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
1) Warriors are easily the most popular class. Given the sheer number of options available to them, they are indeed low on the priority list.

2) I don't get why you think they're "one of the most linear classes" before legacies. First, specialization is a major choice that adds a lot of variety. Second, warriors play very differently from one race to another, and that's less true of other classes.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com
3507, RE: Do we need more specs for warriors?
Posted by Circuits Edge on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>2) I don't get why you think they're "one of the most linear
>classes" before legacies. First, specialization is a
>major choice that adds a lot of variety. Second, warriors
>play very differently from one race to another, and that's
>less true of other classes.

As a shifter, whatever your race is, you'll never know what forms you'll get in a certain focus unless you have an imm source or something. As a conjie, you'll never know what fam you'll get bla bla.. But as a warrior, spin will still be spin, chop will still be chop and cranial will bla bla. You'll know that spin is a rocking skill, you'll know exactly when you'll get it, and you'll know your giant will dodge like ####, spin or not. That's pretty linear in my book.

Any thoughts on how to break the monotony other than doing something like a felar sword spec or elven axe spec that address people with 'dude'?
3508, RE: Do we need more specs for warriors?
Posted by Zulghinlour on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>As a shifter, whatever your race is, you'll never know what
>forms you'll get in a certain focus unless you have an imm
>source or something. As a conjie, you'll never know what fam
>you'll get bla bla..

So in your eyes, every class but shifter & conjurer are linear.
3510, RE: Do we need more specs for warriors?
Posted by incognito on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
warriors are imho the most variable of classes, with the possible exception of thieves.

A drow axe spec does not play like a giant, and that's before you throw in legacies.

Being serious, no one has yet exhausted warrior options, so I don't see why new ones are needed.
3513, RE: Possible fix for you
Posted by Mekantos on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Play less warriors if you are playing so many as to come to this
conclusion. That class is, overall:

-Fun
-Powerful
-Interesting

...so I can't help but think that you, personally, may have just played
too many warriors or something.