Tigersin said:Anyway, this was just addressed by Kils and nothing is going to be decided until larger testing phases. All we know at this point is that this is/was the vision for the game. We're fighting over the vision. Oh well.
we aren't fighting silly man. we are discussing so that rpers have solid cohesive foundation in which to immerse ourselves in. you know how hard it was to rp as a blood elf in wow? like omg i'm fabolous, but i'm like a total mana addict! we need to go, like totally kidnap a naaruuuuu and lock him in the baseamant.
oddly enough, even with my fatuation with fish ppl, i'd probably rp as a haughty zealous borderline insane elf >.> the elf lore is pretty solid as with their class matrix.
it would be fun to rp as a militant dark myr. i could imagine a clint eastwood... MEH... get off my pond. scum.
Riahuf22 said:oneADseven said:@Riahuff
And you just brought up WoW multiple times as if it has anything to do with my post. You just used Capslock and caused me to skip right past every part of it as it comes off like shouting. I wasn't trying to prove Iksar wrong, but rather highlight why it isn't a good idea to allow lore to dictate how our characters interact with the world. If you had actually read my entire post you would see that a Skar using FD actually goes against written / established lore. There was context and build-up. You seemed pretty livid while you typed all that up. Take a breath and relax.
The post wasn't about WoW it was about a company listening to much to the community and change something special that makes the game special all for the sake of "I want it this way instead of that way" type of mentality. There's nothing wrong with it and never was. You want to defy lore to make sense that a ogre can be a wizard, but I'd you do that than in the lore made they would literally have to change it to make it to where wizards are allowed because it's their lore, it's literally their history, all of it. The devs aren't simply going to make a lore and than go oh yeah that doesn't matter.
That's like in the lore the gnomes were so fascinated by magic that they pretty much became magic, but if gnomes weren't able to be any caster type classes that wouldn't make sense right? Of course it wouldn't because it is literally in their lore that they defjnatelt should be able to be those classes, but to have a gnome become a monk defjnatelt doesn't because they made themselv ed incorporeal beings.
Though I can say of they made it to where some gnomes decided that they didn't want to get rid of their physical forms to be some of these different classes I would accept it because again it fits inside the lore of what was giving to them, not because some people just wanted it that way.
i think to be a large successful mmo, you need to be connected to your player based and compromise with well discussed points. in the case of blizzard, they gave into the crying kid and ended up with spoiled irate teens.
i dunno, in a sense, building a good community in an mmo is very much like raising kids. it's tedious, a headache and lots of lost sleep as well as money sometimes, but can be rewarding when you see the community grow into something respectable.
for the point of ogre wizards, it is possible. ogres in the lore are very intelligent(not to be confused with the int stat). the reason they don't need wizardry is there physique does the job better. why spend 3 seconds winding up a fireball when you can efficiently make mash potato heads in 1 second?
oneADseven said:@Tigersin
Agreed. Things will be decided in later testing phases. Until then, we are free to continue discussing things in a civil manner as long as it doesn't breach forum guidelines. As I mentioned previously, open world MMORPG's are what traditional roleplayers dreamed of. You don't have to follow the golden path. You don't have to roleplay a preconceived character and reenact their story. When it comes to character development and storytelling, players should follow their own vision. If there is an expectation that we should follow the social norms of a given race then there would be far more restrictions in place than what class someone could play. It would be dictated to us how we should interact with each other, where we should travel, and give us a list of "appropriate names" to choose from. We wouldn't have a meaningful faction system that allows us to change ally to foe and vice versa. We would be following a prescribed storyline. We would buckle up in our cart and start the ride of rails.
Yes, there will be some of that. The rails will hopefully be well hidden but they'll be there. Anyone DM'd or played an MMO should know it's no sandbox. You'll have a set ammount of choices and what you'll be most free to do in game is socialize. So long as you don't offend too many others. Welcome to MMO gaming though. Glasses off. ;)
stellarmind said:it would be fun to rp as a militant dark myr. i could imagine a clint eastwood... MEH... get off my pond. scum.
LOL! I will make one, now. If you are lucky, we'll never meet....
Are you feeling lucky?
Oh I've just thought of a name.
Clint Eastwind. No.. Clint Beachwood. Hmm. I'll see to this later.
Totally understand that Pantheon isn't a sandbox. My point was that this "restriction because of lore narrative" is something that people are selectively applying. They will go out of their way to justify why every available combination is supported, and why every restriction isn't. There are obvious discrepancies in there that no amount of explanation could fix, but the issue is rooted much deeper than that. I have seen people repeatedly state that certain things "make sense" or "do not make sense." Fair enough. If it doesn't make sense for a Dark Myr cleric to be able to transition to Paladin, specifically because of lore, how many other interactions would also be prevented? "A vast disdain for other races lurks beneath their tranquil surface, calling none friend and few honored as foe." According to that excerpt, they would have no friends among the other races. Let's take that realization and then quantify it over countless in-game scenarios and then either allow/disallow actions based on whether or not it "makes sense." In other words, you wouldn't be able to have friends if you play Dark Myr because having friends would not make sense according to written/established lore.
Let's consider an excerpt from Archai:
"Yet the Archai heritage is not one of enslavement, but valor, uprising and celebration. On Roa they waged a clandestine war of liberation, billowing into a nation of indomitable warriors and overthrowing their captors to utter defeat long ago. On Terminus, they are renowned for their culture of endurance, poise and intrepidness, as well as a robust legacy of jubilation, song and display. They are said to entice danger like sport, while their people thrive on the wildly diverse island realm of Su’Roa, which means “little home”."
Archai are known for overcoming enslavement and liberating themselves. Liberation is defined as "freedom from limits on thoughts or behavior." So how is it fair to use "liberation" as a defining characteristic of an entire race, but then also say that they should be prevented from playing classes X/Y/Z because it wouldn't make sense, or that it might be perceived as twisted? Again, the selective application of using lore excerpts to justify the existing matrix is unfair if we aren't willing to apply it to the big picture. We don't get to pick and choose when "logic" (something making sense) applies.
Here is an example of that happening where Iksar justifies the existence of a Skar Monk:
"Skar - monk make sense to me given they aren't about peace and tranquility. It's about finding a harmony between body and soul (which honestly might be much easier to align for a Skar), wielding the body as a living weapon (fitting for Skar espeically). The Sith to a Jedi."
Here we go again with something "making sense." As soon as that gets stated we should then be operating from a mindset that logic is being applied to the argument. Using logic and written lore as justification, how do we rationalize the following then?
Skar Racial Page:
"If there was an opposite to any good thing in every race, the Skar would stand alone in the extreme. Suicidally vicious, tribal and short-sighted, the Skar fear only their "Nine God" and are there fervent only in their hatred. A ravenous desire to consume fits with their thin, predatorial size and build, and they attack to overwhelm quickly, lacking exceptional endurance. Their role on the stage of Terminus has the most uncertainty, for their battles rage as much within Skargol as outside of it."
Monk Reveal Page:
"The way of the Monk is a path of harmony between the body and the soul. Through longstanding discipline Monks have transformed their very being into resilient, living weapons which they are able to wield against their enemies with devastating effect."
Here are the contradictions, based on logic. It's clearly stated that "through longstanding discipline monks have transformed their very being into ..." -- being short-sighted is the exact opposite of being able to transform your being through longstanding discipline. Furthermore, they are identified as being "suicidally vicious" -- as such, a class defining ability like "feign death" makes zero sense for them. If we're going to use written lore as a way to define the logic of how each race thinks and acts, the Skar Monk is a walking contradiction, on multiple levels. Skar are supposed to be able to unlock the "Gate of Joy" even though they are "fervent only in their hatred?"
If people are going to be so convicted in saying how important the established lore is when it comes to justifying the existing matrix, they should be consistent. Beyond that, it's also being suggested that the Lore defines what each race is, truly. If that were true then our characters (of each given race) would be restricted in ways that extend way beyond what class they can play. It's a nonsensical argument. I'm sure it "sounds good" to some people but if you were to truly play it out with consistency, players would quickly learn just how far these restrictions would go. It would be extremely contradictive to what an open world MMO is supposed to be.
oneADseven said:Totally understand that Pantheon isn't a sandbox. My point was that this "restriction because of lore narrative" is something that people are selectively applying. They will go out of their way to justify why every available combination is supported, and why every restriction isn't. There are obvious discrepancies in there that no amount of explanation could fix, but the issue is rooted much deeper than that. I have seen people repeatedly state that certain things "make sense" or "do not make sense." Fair enough. If it doesn't make sense for a Dark Myr cleric to be able to transition to Paladin, specifically because of lore, how many other interactions would also be prevented? "A vast disdain for other races lurks beneath their tranquil surface, calling none friend and few honored as foe." According to that excerpt, they would have no friends among the other races. Let's take that realization and then quantify it over countless in-game scenarios and then either allow/disallow actions based on whether or not it "makes sense."
Monk Reveal Page:
"The way of the Monk is a path of harmony between the body and the soul. Through longstanding discipline Monks have transformed their very being into resilient, living weapons which they are able to wield against their enemies with devastating effect."
Here are the contradictions, based on logic. It's clearly stated that "through longstanding discipline monks have transformed their very being into ..." -- being short-sighted is the exact opposite of being able to transform your being through longstanding discipline. Furthermore, they are identified as being "suicidally vicious" -- as such, a class defining ability like "feign death" makes zero sense for them. If we're going to use written lore as a way to define the logic of how each race thinks and acts, the Skar Monk is a walking contradiction, on multiple levels. Skar are supposed to be able to unlock the "Gate of Joy" even though they are "fervent only in their hatred?"
another reason why there shouldn't be fish monks! thank you sir you da bestest. you do clint seawood proud ^.^
on a serious note:
to clarify, the reason i'm for a restricted class to lore (or adjust the lore) is so that i don't have a stupid scenario like in wow where blood elves are mana addicts so they kidnap a naaru, shove it in the basement and syphon it's juices. all of a sudden they feel this holy righteousness paladin powahs then are like: JUSTIZ IS DA WAY!!!!!! but we gonna keep this naaru in the basement cuz we still need da juices for PALADIN PAOWAHHHSSSSSSS and to feed our mana addicted population who is justiz!!!!!
end of the day i think the minor disrepencies with class/lore cohension that should be worked out. we'll end up with space goat shamans just because we need to have more class/race diversity for the sake of class/race diversity.
oneADseven said:freedom of choice
Look I am not saying it should be impossible to play as these combinations, I am saying it should require dedication and hard work to make them a reality and not something just open from the start. It works in pen and paper RPGs because you can create whatever backstory/circumstances that lead to it happening, so let players build up to that in-game.
They can fully respect the lore and feel of the world as presented while also allowing players to earn the right to be the outcast/heretic/oddball combination later on via progeny or whatever (honestly VR, it would be a very cool thing). As previously mentioned, something like an ogre who finally maxes reputation and does a deep questline with the humans can have their ogre progeny "born" in the human city and can start as any (or almost any) human class having been raised there. Their starting factions would be barely tolerable to humans of Thronefast but they would be seen as threatening in Broken Maw.
Iksar said:Look I am not saying it should be impossible to play as these combinations, I am saying it should require dedication and hard work to make them a reality and not something just open from the start.
They can fully respect the lore and feel of the world as presented while also allowing players to earn the right to be the outcast/heretic/oddball combination later on via progeny or whatever (honestly VR, it would be a very cool thing). As previously mentioned, something like an ogre who finally maxes reputation and does a deep questline with the humans can have their ogre progeny "born" in the human city and can start as any (or almost any) human class having been raised there. Their starting factions would be barely tolerable to humans of Thronefast but they would be seen as threatening in Broken Maw.
I don't entirely agree but I think that we have arrived at a fair compromise. As long as the outcast/oddball combinations are possible to be unlocked, then all is well.
oneADseven said:@Tigersin
Agreed. Things will be decided in later testing phases. Until then, we are free to continue discussing things in a civil manner as long as it doesn't breach forum guidelines. As I mentioned previously, open world MMORPG's are what traditional roleplayers dreamed of. You don't have to follow the golden path. You don't have to roleplay a preconceived character and reenact their story. When it comes to character development and storytelling, players should follow their own vision. If there is an expectation that we should follow the social norms of a given race then there would be far more restrictions in place than what class someone could play. It would be dictated to us how we should interact with each other, where we should travel, and give us a list of "appropriate names" to choose from. We wouldn't have a meaningful faction system that allows us to change ally to foe and vice versa. We would be following a prescribed storyline. We would buckle up in our cart and start the ride of rails.
Literally almost everything in this post has nothing to do with class selection, you literally just concluded that if you can't pick every class with every race than basically the entire gameplay would be meaningless? No faction system? Dude class restriction simply just make the races with a particular lore stays within the lore that was Givin to them, it doesn't stop there from becoming allies with the humans in away they are literally too different things and to think that it does in anyway you could easily look at old eq, is had class rectriction races and it by far has one of the still most faction based games still to date.
Riahuf22 said:oneADseven said:@Tigersin
Agreed. Things will be decided in later testing phases. Until then, we are free to continue discussing things in a civil manner as long as it doesn't breach forum guidelines. As I mentioned previously, open world MMORPG's are what traditional roleplayers dreamed of. You don't have to follow the golden path. You don't have to roleplay a preconceived character and reenact their story. When it comes to character development and storytelling, players should follow their own vision. If there is an expectation that we should follow the social norms of a given race then there would be far more restrictions in place than what class someone could play. It would be dictated to us how we should interact with each other, where we should travel, and give us a list of "appropriate names" to choose from. We wouldn't have a meaningful faction system that allows us to change ally to foe and vice versa. We would be following a prescribed storyline. We would buckle up in our cart and start the ride of rails.
Literally almost everything in this post has nothing to do with class selection, you literally just concluded that if you can't pick every class with every race than basically the entire gameplay would be meaningless? No faction system? Dude class restriction simply just make the races with a particular lore stays within the lore that was Givin to them, it doesn't stop there from becoming allies with the humans in away they are literally too different things and to think that it does in anyway you could easily look at old eq, is had class rectriction races and it by far has one of the still most faction based games still to date.
i'd rather have a restrict race/class matrix and have a free open world in which i can associate with other races than an any class/any race faction based system. it would be fun to see a dark myr, a gnome, a skarr, an archai and an ogre walk into a bar... (insert joke here)
i'll use wow as an example here:
chart of population by race
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276315/distribution-of-world-of-warcraft-characters-by-race/
and here's an image for the class/race matrix a bit outdated
if you do any race can be any class, you end up with a population which the 'prettiest' race or racial advantage comes into play.
humans, night elves and blood elves are majority of the population. even hardcore raiding guilds specifically switched to alliance humans because of min maxing although i think this has flipped now horde is the way to go for raiding now >.>
oneADseven said:I'm sorry that the underlying point in that message didn't make sense to you Riahuff.
I did, I saying they aren't related. In anyway, like I said being the friendliest skar doesn't mean your not an evil race, you could become lobed by the human and dwarf factions yes this is true, but it still doesn't mean you aren't evil, you've just change the state of mind of you and only one, but that doesn't mean just because you have become loved by those factions they are going t teach you how to be a paladin or the fact that it should ever be available to you, all I got to say is I'm glad VR is sticking to their class matrix because we have too many of the allrace/all class games now anyway.
oneADseven said:Totally understand that Pantheon isn't a sandbox. My point was that this "restriction because of lore narrative" is something that people are selectively applying. They will go out of their way to justify why every available combination is supported, and why every restriction isn't. There are obvious discrepancies in there that no amount of explanation could fix, but the issue is rooted much deeper than that. I have seen people repeatedly state that certain things "make sense" or "do not make sense." Fair enough. If it doesn't make sense for a Dark Myr cleric to be able to transition to Paladin, specifically because of lore, how many other interactions would also be prevented? "A vast disdain for other races lurks beneath their tranquil surface, calling none friend and few honored as foe." According to that excerpt, they would have no friends among the other races. Let's take that realization and then quantify it over countless in-game scenarios and then either allow/disallow actions based on whether or not it "makes sense." In other words, you wouldn't be able to have friends if you play Dark Myr because having friends would not make sense according to written/established lore.
Let's consider an excerpt from Archai:
"Yet the Archai heritage is not one of enslavement, but valor, uprising and celebration. On Roa they waged a clandestine war of liberation, billowing into a nation of indomitable warriors and overthrowing their captors to utter defeat long ago. On Terminus, they are renowned for their culture of endurance, poise and intrepidness, as well as a robust legacy of jubilation, song and display. They are said to entice danger like sport, while their people thrive on the wildly diverse island realm of Su’Roa, which means “little home”."
Archai are known for overcoming enslavement and liberating themselves. Liberation is defined as "freedom from limits on thoughts or behavior." So how is it fair to use "liberation" as a defining characteristic of an entire race, but then also say that they should be prevented from playing classes X/Y/Z because it wouldn't make sense, or that it might be perceived as twisted? Again, the selective application of using lore excerpts to justify the existing matrix is unfair if we aren't willing to apply it to the big picture. We don't get to pick and choose when "logic" (something making sense) applies.
Here is an example of that happening where Iksar justifies the existence of a Skar Monk:
"Skar - monk make sense to me given they aren't about peace and tranquility. It's about finding a harmony between body and soul (which honestly might be much easier to align for a Skar), wielding the body as a living weapon (fitting for Skar espeically). The Sith to a Jedi."
Here we go again with something "making sense." As soon as that gets stated we should then be operating from a mindset that logic is being applied to the argument. Using logic and written lore as justification, how do we rationalize the following then?
Skar Racial Page:
"If there was an opposite to any good thing in every race, the Skar would stand alone in the extreme. Suicidally vicious, tribal and short-sighted, the Skar fear only their "Nine God" and are there fervent only in their hatred. A ravenous desire to consume fits with their thin, predatorial size and build, and they attack to overwhelm quickly, lacking exceptional endurance. Their role on the stage of Terminus has the most uncertainty, for their battles rage as much within Skargol as outside of it."
Monk Reveal Page:
"The way of the Monk is a path of harmony between the body and the soul. Through longstanding discipline Monks have transformed their very being into resilient, living weapons which they are able to wield against their enemies with devastating effect."
Here are the contradictions, based on logic. It's clearly stated that "through longstanding discipline monks have transformed their very being into ..." -- being short-sighted is the exact opposite of being able to transform your being through longstanding discipline. Furthermore, they are identified as being "suicidally vicious" -- as such, a class defining ability like "feign death" makes zero sense for them. If we're going to use written lore as a way to define the logic of how each race thinks and acts, the Skar Monk is a walking contradiction, on multiple levels. Skar are supposed to be able to unlock the "Gate of Joy" even though they are "fervent only in their hatred?"
If people are going to be so convicted in saying how important the established lore is when it comes to justifying the existing matrix, they should be consistent. Beyond that, it's also being suggested that the Lore defines what each race is, truly. If that were true then our characters (of each given race) would be restricted in ways that extend way beyond what class they can play. It's a nonsensical argument. I'm sure it "sounds good" to some people but if you were to truly play it out with consistency, players would quickly learn just how far these restrictions would go. It would be extremely contradictive to what an open world MMO is supposed to be.
Of course they do, 1AD, because it's the job of lore writers and designers altogether. It's part of the background, wether we agree or not to it's reasons because it's not written to our taste.
Based on what logic? It's based on how you think it should be versus how others think it should be. This isn't science. It just isn't. You keep saying the same thing.
edit: using the term logic.. everyone here typing multiple paragraphs has some sort of logic
Riahuf22 said:I did, I saying they aren't related. In anyway, like I said being the friendliest skar doesn't mean your not an evil race, you could become lobed by the human and dwarf factions yes this is true, but it still doesn't mean you aren't evil, you've just change the state of mind of you and only one, but that doesn't mean just because you have become loved by those factions they are going t teach you how to be a paladin or the fact that it should ever be available to you, all I got to say is I'm glad VR is sticking to their class matrix because we have too many of the allrace/all class games now anyway.
My point was that being a "friendly skar" shouldn't be possible if there was any consistency in the logic that is being used to support your argument. My point was that players will be able to enjoy "freedom of choice" when it comes to the faction system even if it means "going against tradition." My point was that the players playing Dark Myr will have friends from other races despite the lore stating they should not. If two players (Elf & Skar) decide that they are going to get married in game, because they love each other, they will do it. That's a classic form of in-game roleplaying. If there was real merit in these lore-based restrictions then people would be calling for other artificial restrictions to prevent that from happening. You brought up WoW earlier and guess what, they did have an artificial restriction imposed that would prevent something like that from happening. Their Alliance Vs Horde system prevented people from either faction communicating with each other. Should we make Pantheon more WoW like in this sense since it would be more closely aligned with the logic that supports your argument?
People talk a big game about "meaningful choice" and how significant of an impact choosing your race should be, and how incredibly important it is that each race is represented in a way that is aligned with the established lore, but that argument just doesn't hold up in my eyes. If that were true, there would be hundreds of other arbitrary restrictions enforced in-game in order to better support the "theme" of each race.
I think it's way more farfetched that an Elf would get married to a Skar than it would be for a Dark Myr cleric to transition to Paladin. If we want to talk about immersion, very few things can take you out of the world and remind you that you're playing a game than arbitrary restrictions, especially when there is no consistency in the logic that govern them. Your point is that you can become loved (even though it directly opposes lore) but that doesn't mean that other class options should be available. My point is that you're picking and choosing when this "restriction because of lore narrative" is applied. If there is a legitimate reason why a restriction should be in place, and one that can stand up to logic that isn't preconditioned by EQ nostalgia, I would be happy to hear it.
oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:I did, I saying they aren't related. In anyway, like I said being the friendliest skar doesn't mean your not an evil race, you could become lobed by the human and dwarf factions yes this is true, but it still doesn't mean you aren't evil, you've just change the state of mind of you and only one, but that doesn't mean just because you have become loved by those factions they are going t teach you how to be a paladin or the fact that it should ever be available to you, all I got to say is I'm glad VR is sticking to their class matrix because we have too many of the allrace/all class games now anyway.
My point was that being a "friendly skar" shouldn't be possible if there was any consistency in the logic that is being used to support your argument. My point was that players will be able to enjoy "freedom of choice" when it comes to the faction system even if it means "going against tradition." My point was that the players playing Dark Myr will have friends from other races despite the lore stating they should not. If two players (Elf & Skar) decide that they are going to get married in game, because they love each other, they will do it. People talk a big game about "meaningful choice" and how significant of an impact choosing your race should be, and how incredibly important it is that each race is represented in a way that is aligned with the established lore, but that argument just doesn't hold up in my eyes.
I think it's way more farfetched that an Elf would get married to a Skar than it would be for a Dark Myr cleric to transition to Paladin. If we want to talk about immersion, very few things can take you out of the world and remind you that you're playing a game than arbitrary restrictions, especially when there is no consistency in the logic that govern them. Your point is that you can become loved (even though it directly opposes lore) but that doesn't mean that other class options should be available. My point is that you're picking and choosing when this "restriction because of lore narrative" is applied. If there is a legitimate reason why a restriction should be in place, and one that can stand up to logic that isn't preconditioned by EQ nostalgia, I would be happy to hear it.
pfft dark myr being friendly to other races?! hahahahahah. dark myrly tolerate other races. afterall, they carry the facade of being at peace, but in the end they are just old grumpy porch 'get-off-my-pond scum' fishes.
oneADseven said:
My point was that being a "friendly skar" shouldn't be possible if there was any consistency in the logic that is being used to support your argument. My point was that players will be able to enjoy "freedom of choice" when it comes to the faction system even if it means "going against tradition." My point was that the players playing Dark Myr will have friends from other races despite the lore stating they should not. If two players (Elf & Skar) decide that they are going to get married in game, because they love each other, they will do it. (That's a classic form of in-game roleplaying. If there was real merit in these lore-based restrictions then people would be calling for other artificial restrictions to prevent that from happening. You brought up WoW earlier and guess what, they did have an artificial restriction imposed that would prevent something like that from happening.) People talk a big game about "meaningful choice" and how significant of an impact choosing your race should be, and how incredibly important it is that each race is represented in a way that is aligned with the established lore, but that argument just doesn't hold up in my eyes. If that were true, there would be hundreds of other arbitrary restrictions enforced in-game in order to better support the "theme" of each race.
I think it's way more farfetched that an Elf would get married to a Skar than it would be for a Dark Myr cleric to transition to Paladin. If we want to talk about immersion, very few things can take you out of the world and remind you that you're playing a game than arbitrary restrictions, especially when there is no consistency in the logic that govern them. Your point is that you can become loved (even though it directly opposes lore) but that doesn't mean that other class options should be available. My point is that you're picking and choosing when this "restriction because of lore narrative" is applied. If there is a legitimate reason why a restriction should be in place, and one that can stand up to logic that isn't preconditioned by EQ nostalgia, I would be happy to hear it.
You're 'discussing' multiple topics. You feel restrictions are 'abrbitrary' as if this is your game. You are dictating what is important and what isn't. Don't you think they might matter to someone? You don't see the reason. You don't see the 'logic' (not sure why that word is being used again) and because you haven't figured out why, you think it shouldn't be? Let's wait and see if they explain the reasoning. Just because you don't understand why it is, doesn't mean there is no reason.
oneADseven said:Riahuf22 said:I did, I saying they aren't related. In anyway, like I said being the friendliest skar doesn't mean your not an evil race, you could become lobed by the human and dwarf factions yes this is true, but it still doesn't mean you aren't evil, you've just change the state of mind of you and only one, but that doesn't mean just because you have become loved by those factions they are going t teach you how to be a paladin or the fact that it should ever be available to you, all I got to say is I'm glad VR is sticking to their class matrix because we have too many of the allrace/all class games now anyway.
My point was that being a "friendly skar" shouldn't be possible if there was any consistency in the logic that is being used to support your argument. My point was that players will be able to enjoy "freedom of choice" when it comes to the faction system even if it means "going against tradition." My point was that the players playing Dark Myr will have friends from other races despite the lore stating they should not. If two players (Elf & Skar) decide that they are going to get married in game, because they love each other, they will do it. That's a classic form of in-game roleplaying. If there was real merit in these lore-based restrictions then people would be calling for other artificial restrictions to prevent that from happening. You brought up WoW earlier and guess what, they did have an artificial restriction imposed that would prevent something like that from happening. Their Alliance Vs Horde system prevented people from either faction communicating with each other. Should we make Pantheon more WoW like in this sense since it would be more closely aligned with the logic that supports your argument?
People talk a big game about "meaningful choice" and how significant of an impact choosing your race should be, and how incredibly important it is that each race is represented in a way that is aligned with the established lore, but that argument just doesn't hold up in my eyes. If that were true, there would be hundreds of other arbitrary restrictions enforced in-game in order to better support the "theme" of each race.
I think it's way more farfetched that an Elf would get married to a Skar than it would be for a Dark Myr cleric to transition to Paladin. If we want to talk about immersion, very few things can take you out of the world and remind you that you're playing a game than arbitrary restrictions, especially when there is no consistency in the logic that govern them. Your point is that you can become loved (even though it directly opposes lore) but that doesn't mean that other class options should be available. My point is that you're picking and choosing when this "restriction because of lore narrative" is applied. If there is a legitimate reason why a restriction should be in place, and one that can stand up to logic that isn't preconditioned by EQ nostalgia, I would be happy to hear it.
So basically your saying people should only pick skars on PVP servers got it thanks for the help
Choosing how you play your character and what your character can be are also completely different things as wrll just so you know, I'm sure not everyone who skar is going to be a douche just because the game says it is but I am saying that more than likely if you do play a Skar their could be some quest that make you go around and kill elves and bring back body parts as proof you did your deed.
Tigersin said:You're 'discussing' multiple topics. You feel restrictions are 'abrbitrary' as if this is your game. You are dictating what is important and what isn't. Don't you think they might matter to someone? You don't see the reason. You don't see the 'logic' (not sure why that word is being used again) and because you haven't figured out why, you think it shouldn't be?
RPG = Role Playing Game. I understand that these restrictions matter more/less to some than others. My entire premise is based around the idea that these restrictions matter to me. If you think it's okay to impose an artificial restriction on a Dark Myr Cleric transitioning to Paladin, would it also be okay to impose an artificial restriction that prevents players (playing a Dark Myr) from adding non Dark Myr to their friends list? It would be backed up by lore!
Tigersin said:Let's wait and see if they explain the reasoning. Just because you don't understand why it is, doesn't mean there is no reason.
The reasoning has already been explained.
"Here’s a diagram depicting our initial thoughts for Race and Class combos. This is largely based upon the current lore for each race paired with the flavor for each class. Additionally, as we continue on the road to public release (and beyond with live events and expansions), new Races, new Classes, and new combinations may become available."
oneADseven said:Tigersin said:You're 'discussing' multiple topics. You feel restrictions are 'abrbitrary' as if this is your game. You are dictating what is important and what isn't. Don't you think they might matter to someone? You don't see the reason. You don't see the 'logic' (not sure why that word is being used again) and because you haven't figured out why, you think it shouldn't be? Let's wait and see if they explain the reasoning. Just because you don't understand why it is, doesn't mean there is no reason.
RPG = Role Playing Game. I understand that these restrictions matter more/less to some than others. My entire premise is based around the idea that these restrictions matter to me. If you think it's okay to impose an artificial restriction on a Dark Myr Cleric transitioning to Paladin, would it also be okay to impose an artificial restriction that prevents players (playing a Dark Myr) from adding non Dark Myr to their friends list? It would be backed up by lore!
Look people use lore to justify the means of how a race is built not to force them into playing a particular way while actually playing the game, you can say that it counterdict itself but if it didn't than would that make basically everyone playing a Skar have a really dark side to them when I'm sure one might be a loving grandma of 6 grandchildren? I mean the whole premise your your entire argument is that the matrix exist and up until now no one said anything about it and it's literally been known for what 2 years but now all of a sudden people want it to be all/all nah people just wanting to argue over something and this just became a hot topic
Riahuf22 said:Look people use lore to justify the means of how a race is built not to force them into playing a particular way while actually playing the game
If you had stopped right there we would be in agreement. You think it's okay for someone playing a purely evil race to go against tradition and play the "friendliest character ever" but as soon as a Dark Myr cleric wants to transition to Paladin, that is when things become unacceptable. Logic.
Riahuf22 said:I mean the whole premise your your entire argument is that the matrix exist and up until now no one said anything about it and it's literally been known for what 2 years but now all of a sudden people want it to be all/all nah people just wanting to argue over something and this just became a hot topic
This isn't some new topic that I randomly decided I want to argue about. I posted in the main race/class reveal thread several years ago saying that I liked things being mixed up as they were, but also said that I would like to see a betrayal feature added. This was touched on briefly in the FAQ:
We like all of that in general -- the question comes up though: to what degree should these factions matter and does this sort of thing slip into PvP territory? If it does, you'd only see it in PvP servers. But changing your factions so NPCs will react differently to you -- this is all key to the game -- our faction system will be quite robust. Yes, you could betray your home or default factions.
Based on the above verbiage, I think it's reasonable that the robust faction system that has been alluded to could include the option for players to betray their race and play a different class.
oneADseven said:Tigersin said:RPG = Role Playing Game. I understand that these restrictions matter more/less to some than others. My entire premise is based around the idea that these restrictions matter to me. If you think it's okay to impose an artificial restriction on a Dark Myr Cleric transitioning to Paladin, would it also be okay to impose an artificial restriction that prevents players (playing a Dark Myr) from adding non Dark Myr to their friends list? It would be backed up by lore!
dark myr have no friends! they need to rename it to 'associates list'
in a high fantasy setting, when we think of cleric refers to a holy order, but you can say evil cleric or cleric of syronai, then definition changes as it pertains to just an evil order or dark myr. so then a paladin of syronai can be a totally different beast from the traditional holy paladin.
i would say your approach is a bit extreme since friends list is a ui deal and doesn't involve immersion, but i understand your point.
the lore isn't super established. we can all agree to that. from a designer point of view, it has to be broad, but the framework should be adjusted.
we can say that each race in terminus would have specialized specific classes because they all orginate from very different enviroments.
it is logical to conclude that natural combat occupation(this is important as conflict pushes things to be efficient) will occur to suit the enviroment.
