User talk:Leoko4321

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Come on guys[edit]

moved from talk:Engineer

Quoted text.

— What? A flamethrower? Yes, Arena Net's designers remember well the phony commando profession the studio revealed this past April Fools' Day and the ensuing backlash from fans who felt that a rifle-toting soldier had no business appearing in the fantasy world of Guild Wars. While the Arena Net staffers do anticipate some backlash regarding a steampunk-like profession that charges into battle with a ramshackle, homemade flamethrower backpack, they assured us that the reasoning behind the new class was sound. For starters, because Guild Wars 2 takes place more than 200 years after the events in the previous game, the world has grown and changed. Thus, conventional technology has also changed--and the strange and wonderful gadgets of the engineer are proof. In addition, the designers feel strongly that the profession fits extremely well into the sequel's general mix of characters and can provide a strong, unique role for the right players to play.

These guys provide a valid point on the evolution for this class, And why the weapons have advanced so far, This does take place 200+ years in the future, so things are bound to change a bit -- Leoko4321 20:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Balderdash. Flamethrowers, grenades and remote controlled mines do not belong in a fantasy setting. The profession does not fit at all. This would be like putting a wizard in a game set in World War 2. Ramei Arashi 20:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it would be like putting a trap ranger in a game set in an industrial fantasy setting. Again, you're placing your own personal principles on something they don't belong. Teddy Dan 21:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor then do yours Teddy Dan. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Why is this class a problem? They already have <expletive>ing teleportation devices and flying cities, and you're telling me that a simple (somewhat steampunky) grenade is out of the question? Aqua (T|C) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Please indent your comments. What personal principles am I attempting to force? I'm in agreement with Anet, considering I completely agree with the above quote. @Aqua: Apparently, certain people are of the impression that explosives and basic firearms destroy the fantasy genre (even though pistol/blunderbuss-wielding pirates and cannons are featured in many, many fantasy novels). Teddy Dan 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
People need to stop QQ'ing. If you look at the fundamentals of the basic format of most modern weaponry, they can all either be replicated in crude formats (guns and explosives, even vehicles) or duplicated via magic (lasers! Automatronic devices!). While I dislike things such as the cars shown during the charr week video, and I greatly dislike the many many concept arts of more modern-day looking things (trains, helicopters), one must realize that many things people are actually complaining about (mines, grenades, etc.) were very much possible long before the industrial revolution, which is the timeframe best comparable to the charr's technology. And if one race can get something, the other races can get it via barter or theft.
Furthermore, if one were to look at history and how simple the original form of various things were, one can realize one simple thing: Humans are stupid. If we knew what was possible to do with technology immediately at every turn, the level of technology we have now would of been old news centuries ago - if not millenniums. Let's look at some facts: The earliest explosives were used in China in AD 1044, the cannon was commonplace by the 13th century (~200 years later), and the first gun was created in the 12th century. GW1 is often put on par to the Middle Ages, which were from the 5th century to the 15th century. In other words, firearms, explosives, etc, were out and about in the middle ages - the time-period most commonly placed with GW1. GW2 shows Victorian era, Industrial revolution era, and total fantasy-cannot-be-related-to-real-life. How are guns unreasonable? How are grenades, effectively explosives with internal fuses, the first of which having been used in the 700s via petrolium oil as the explosive material, and gunpowder grenades existing since the time of gunpowder, be unfitting to this? Mines, as said above, are effectively pressure-sensitive grenades (e.g., press a button and it goes boom). How can grenades be too futuristic when they're as old as gunpowder? And the time period that GW1 is related to is from the time of gunpowder's invention - and GW1 even has gunpowder! You guys are making no sense in your qq arguments. Go look up facts. Hell, technically speaking missiles are plausible during GW1's timeframe.-- Konig/talk 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That is all. Teddy Dan 23:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"Hell, technically speaking missiles are plausible during GW1's timeframe."
So... World PvP is basically World War III the first World War? Sounds even more epic now... User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Only if there are trenches. -- Konig/talk 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
They also talked about an event that simulates the D-Day from WWII, with a landing on a beach from a boat, under heavy fire from the defending guys. Chriskang 00:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

--- Well said my friend. For one, I think people need to look at what our own tecnology as humans looked liek 200 years ago, and ask yourselves if and a world of SEVERAL intelligent civilized species could conjure up a MINOR tecnology jump of this sort. It adds for much gameplay potential, and a NEW game! DUH! this isn't GW expansion guys. Many of you CRACK addicts just want to do the same thing over and over. Modern Warfare par: 57 comes out soon. go buy that if you want to stay a robot for your life. Me, and my boy here are gonna play this new game called Guild WArs 2; it has new ideas, gameplay concepts. and guess what? its not the same old Middle Earth Dwarves, Elves, Orcs BS that we are ALL tired of. refer to my post "Ritualist", a little further down, and I'm sure i can convince you of my views, or at least get you considering other things  :D


---Here's my take on the profession's background story, for what it's worth (copy pasted from a similar discussion on reddit).

Have you ever listened to a new song by a band you love and initially think, "this doesn't even sound like them"? But then usually as I listen to the song more, I grow more comfortable with this new sound coming from an old favorite...and sometimes I even fall in love with the song.
I think that's what's happening here for me. My first reaction was, "Med kits, grenades, and turrets in a fantasy setting? ...ew," but it's a logical progression in a number of ways, really. The general populace in GW1 seemed to have an aversion to magic--for example, one of my first memories of the game is of the recruiter in Old Ascalon telling my elementalist character that he doesn't trust magic, but that he can't deny the usefulness of a meteor shower in combat. This sentiment is furthered in the novels, too.
It struck me as odd, however, that while the townsfolk are uncomfortable with magic, almost all of the playable classes heavily utilize magic, with no equivalent alternative. This is why the Engineer at least makes sense: it's more of an alternative to magic that's developed over 200 years, expanding on this notion that magic is unfavorable. I mean, we'll see how the GW lore developers spin the development of turrets and flamethrowers (I'm sure it will heavily involve the Charr and their life philosophies/badass-ness), but I like the idea that they're developing and growing the anti-magic story rather than forgetting it ever existed. Fritzywiggins 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I just detest the fact that it isn't the engineer's skill, knowledge, or strength that makes him's the junk he carries with him. From what I've seen the engineer do in the skill videos, it would take a conscripted soldier about a week to master the profession. Carrying and dropping a self-targeting, autonomous turret and then standing back throwing grenades is not my idea of an accomplished, experienced adventurer or fighter. And by the way, the biggest reasons that guns replaced bows (in real life) when they did were:
-a rifleman could be trained in a week, whereas a bowman required a decade or more
-if rifle-armed peasants revolted, they could be defeated simply by cutting off their supply of gunpowder
-the supplies of suitable bow wood were running very low; yew trees in particular grow very slowly
Until the widespread use of rifled barrels in the 1800s, bows were more accurate than guns and had longer effective range. Until the adoption of repeating rifles after the American Civil War, bows had a greater rate of fire than guns. -- 07:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)