Halae wrote: » I don't think slotting Summoner into the "support class" category is correct. It's meant to be a jack-of-all-trades class that fills holes in your team comp - if you're missing a healer, they can kinda cover for it. If you're missing a tank, they're capable of taking aggro. They can deal damage if you really need that. And they're capable of specializing their playstyle to suit that kind of hole-filling role, by becoming almost as good at is as a dedicated class. That's not support, that's just versatility. Choosing a Brood Warden (Summoner/Tank) to fill one of the tank slots on your team isn't adding a support character to your setup, you've just got a tank with a displaced health bar. The Brood Warden will be capable of all the tank things, such as CC, general damage output, and distracting the enemy. You're right to put Bard in the support class role, given it's been stated to be structured around supporting others. But you're just kind of... giving it stuff that it has no need for and isn't part of the definition for the archetype. Bard is a buff-oriented archetype, meant to be the midliner that makes sure everyone else becomes more powerful. Not cleansing (which is a Cleric ability), not CCs, nothing like that. Bards are essential as a support because they make everyone else stronger, not because they can do something nobody else can. There's no reason to give them some super special unique ability beyond that, because buffing your teammates is actually already horrendously powerful.
Githal wrote: » Idk what games you played so far, but your definition of the Bard class is the most boring thing i have ever heard, Like for real you expect people to play a class that stays afk and uses mass buffs for increase dmg and some non cc debufs? Insane.
Noaani wrote: » The reason you are thinking a class based around buffing is boring is because you are taking the mechanic of buffing from games that have it as a minor aspect of many classes and just assuming that is how it always works. If designed well, a class based around buffing can be one of the most fun to play.
Noaani wrote: » EQ and EQ2. Moreso EQ2. I don't make baseless comments. If I have no base, I don't comment.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » EQ and EQ2. Moreso EQ2. I don't make baseless comments. If I have no base, I don't comment. dam... Well you could say this since in EQ2 every class feels boring, not just support. So Maybe you are right to say that support there doesnt feel more boring than the other boring classes
Noaani wrote: » I'm going to assume you have never made it past level 60. If you are playing low level, then I agree 100%. When you hit the level cap and get yourself in to a raid, it is the best PvE MMO experience that has existed - in no small part due to the two bard classes the game has.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » I'm going to assume you have never made it past level 60. If you are playing low level, then I agree 100%. When you hit the level cap and get yourself in to a raid, it is the best PvE MMO experience that has existed - in no small part due to the two bard classes the game has. Ah yes. the good old "stay at 1 place without moving" combat where you press the same 4 skills rotation all the time.
Noaani wrote: » Oh, so I was wrong. You have not even played the first 10 levels of EQ2.
Githal wrote: » if i have to compare EQ2 combat to anything will be Tarisland.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Oh, so I was wrong. You have not even played the first 10 levels of EQ2. Man the only thing that can make you not spam the same rotation over and over and over and over again are Heroic opportunities which feels like messing your rotation for them is reducing your dps in most cases. So idk what you talking about.
Noaani wrote: » If you have to google something in order to pretend you know what you are talking about, just stop talking.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If you have to google something in order to pretend you know what you are talking about, just stop talking. TBH it feels like you havent played any other MMO, and cant make the comparison yourself.
Noaani wrote: » Yeah, you have no actual points left to make. You were told by someone that bards are often buff classes, and then made the assumption that this would mean buffs as per the games you are used to, rather than actually making a class built around buffing. When pointed out to you that this is indeed the case in other games, you didn't believe me and asked me to state which games I was talking about. You were hoping I wouldn't name any, with the intention of using that to discredit the comment (it wouldn't, just because something hasn't been does, doesn't mean it can't be done). However, when games were named, you then attempted to badmouth the game in an attempt to make render anything positive about the game as a negative. When it was pointed out that it seemed you didn't know the game very well, you googled a basic fact about the game and just so happened to have stumbled on one of the very few things that make it blatantly obvious you have not played the game at all, ever. When this was pointed out to you, you come up with the above. Don't think for a second that everyone can't see through you like a damn window. We all know this kind of bullshit - you can't get away with it here. So, the most recent useful part of this conversation was the statement that a bard class based around buffing does not mean what you think it means. Would you like to go back to that point and carry on the conversation?
Githal wrote: » Do you realize that there is not a single Argument that you pointed out during our whole conversation?
Noaani wrote: » Yes I do - because you don't have the base level understanding of what we are talking about to argue against. You spent a few minutes googling a game, made a comment and expect a discussion - no. In regards to things you do not know, you listen, you do not discuss. You get told, you do not argue. That is what this is, it is me telling you where you are wrong, not us discussing it or arguing it.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Yes I do - because you don't have the base level understanding of what we are talking about to argue against. You spent a few minutes googling a game, made a comment and expect a discussion - no. In regards to things you do not know, you listen, you do not discuss. You get told, you do not argue. That is what this is, it is me telling you where you are wrong, not us discussing it or arguing it. So your whole mindset is the problem then? You expect to converse your point of view and tell someone is wrong without giving a single argument (and yes argument is different from arguing maybe you can google the meaning).
Noaani wrote: » No, I expect people to not argue matters they have no understanding of. I will happily argue at length with people that do, just not with those that don't. And especially not those dishonest enough to attempt to pretend that they have an understanding. Quite honestly, with your dishonesty in this thread, what do you expect?
Githal wrote: » BTW you are the one who has no arguments to give and is just saying empty words.