This is over. If you aren't actually going to discuss this with me. I'm done arguing with someone who won't do anything but discredit the ONLY WAY WE HAVE TO COMPARE THESE TWO. You can only compare these two by running a simulation through your head. Unless you have invented a time machine. But I doubt it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
This is over. If you aren't actually going to discuss this with me. I'm done arguing with someone who won't do anything but discredit the ONLY WAY WE HAVE TO COMPARE THESE TWO. You can only compare these two by running a simulation through your head. Unless you have invented a time machine. But I doubt it.
What?
The only way to compare two completely different fighters is to run a simulation through your head?
Wow... ok.
Obviously discussing advantages and disatvantages is not a viable way of comparison.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
No. I would be... one of the admins on this forum. So you want to try showing me a little respect?
Btw, enjoy your infraction point for the arguing. Next time gets you a short ban.
Ok this will probably be worth a ban but - get that stick out of your behind.
So we're arguing - so what? Show me the forum rule which says ARGUING is not allowed?
This is an almost civil discussion (a few exceptions occured, but we worked that out) - but not one full of flaming and cursing. We have different opinions and we try to show each other the error of the others ways.
And showing you a little respect? That's more than you deserve as far as I see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
Show me the forum rule which says ARGUING is not allowed?
1C - Arguing
'Arguing' is not Debate. The two are different, and it is important to understand the difference between them. Debate is the free discussion of numerous differing opinions employing the use of logic, evidence, and civil disagreement. Arguing is a conflict between numerous differing opinions wrought with illogical and/or irrelevant exchange, a lack of proper evidence, and innapropriate or impolite animosity. The difference is usually very clear but, in a case that proves hard to distinguish, a decision will be made at staff discretion.
Max Punishment: Permanent Ban (Dependent On Severity)
There it is
Sorry for playing admin here, it's just that this guys piss me off
I'm not talking about a fist fight. I'm talking about a fight involving weapons. And the shield may play an important role in a fight, if you're STUPID enough to HIT it. Maybe with the Bo staff he'd lose, let's choose a different weapon shall we? Another one that's mentioned a lot is the 9-section chain whip. He spins it, he attacks, the spartan blocks, the chain bends around it and slices his arm. The spartan, out of pain, drops his shield, giving the Monk perfect attack opportunities. The spartan will be shredded to bits. Do you see the logic? Or do I make no sense because I disagree with what you're saying?
Even with the shield vs the bo staff, if the spartan is covered by it and can't see, the monk can stalk around and get him from behind. Or if he can see, that means there's an opening. The Monk strikes at it, the spartan retreats behind his shield, the Monk moves to the side and gets him right between the ribs. The spartan is startled and turns around quickly. The Monk could lose his grip on the Bo staff and be slaughtered, he could also keep his grip, spin around and trip him with it. Then he drives the Bo staff right into his neck.
It makes no sense because you don't have any idea of wtf are you talking about. You are simply expeculating based at your fancy imagination. Someone stalks other backs during battle is something fucking ridicolous. The *only* thing that can defeat a shield user in battle is another shield user or a fire weapon user. I will try to explain why:
Shields blocks most of the attacks possibilities leaving only a small amount of possible attacks to the enemy. This drastical reduction of possibilities makes very easy to defender dogde the other attacks.
The shield also gives a powerful offensive edge over the enemy, once he can enter in the attack radius of the enemy without been severely counter attacked. Also, shieds makes the act of attack increase his defence (unlike someone that only counts of dogding/parrying that looses almost all defensive power while attacking), because the area covered by the shield increase as the user gets closer to the enemy. Because of that, if a shield user face a unshielded enemy he will have alot more attack oportunity wich means he will kill the enemy first.
And I'm not familiar with the whip scenarium, but I will research a bit when I have time.
Also i'm only talking about a generic shield user and a generic non shield user. The difference will drastically increase when we put a soldier in one side and a non soldier in the other. The very fact that ones trains to kill people and the other trains to live longer and bettes says everything.
EDIT: Sorry the admin warning was posted when i was writing the mensage. Do i have to delete this?
It makes no sense because you don't have any idea of wtf are you talking about. You are simply expeculating based at your fancy imagination. Someone stalks other backs during battle is something fucking ridicolous. The *only* thing that can defeat a shield user in battle is another shield user or a fire weapon user. I will try to explain why:
Shields blocks most of the attacks possibilities leaving only a small amount of possible attacks to the enemy. This drastical reduction of possibilities makes very easy to defender dogde the other attacks.
The shield also gives a powerful offensive edge over the enemy, once he can enter in the attack radius of the enemy without been severely counter attacked. Also, shieds makes the act of attack increase his defence (unlike someone that only counts of dogding/parrying that looses almost all defensive power while attacking), because the area covered by the shield increase as the user gets closer to the enemy. Because of that, if a shield user face a unshielded enemy he will have alot more attack oportunity wich means he will kill the enemy first.
And I'm not familiar with the whip scenarium, but I will research a bit when I have time.
Also i'm only talking about a generic shield user and a generic non shield user. The difference will drastically increase when we put a soldier in one side and a non soldier in the other. The very fact that ones trains to kill people and the other trains to live longer and bettes says everything.
EDIT: Sorry the admin warning was posted when i was writing the mensage. Do i have to delete this?
Aight aight, I see what you're saying. And yeah, lol, I was probably wrong about the stalking thing. That was the stretches of my imagination.
Probably, the most scientific we could be, would be to get a group together and discuss the most likely plan of action each would take, given a certain scenario, then the other countering that, and then countering that, and so on and so forth, until someone died.
PS: What's an infraction point?
Edit: Misspelled scenario, noticed when I sent it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
Alright I respect your arguments but lets put this in the game of Diablo. Now you got the monk which I think would be prerty bad ass and I would play it anyway cause im playing all the characters for the storyline. Now imagine the Barbarian and the monk going on a 1v1. Now a monk with a skillled player might be able to win. But lets say the Barbarian and the Monk are being played by total newbs. Now the guy with the monk will most likley just try to be a melee combater type thingy. Now the barbarian if he gets enough rage will go whirlwind on his ass and most likley take that monk down Thats just my thought though so... (DONT HURT ME)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
If diablo would follow reality, anyone without a shield would die very very easy. Games don't only add fictional stuff but twsit reality to creat a better gameplay.
About a monk in D3? Yeah. I believe we can have one because he fits the melee and the benevolent role at once (like the paladin), still with very differently. A mele clas that use staff as main weapon would be very nice to bring some new air to rpgs imo.
I just love the idea of the class. Hand to hand, staves, holy, just seems fun to me. Opinions may vary of course.
I've just always liked hand to hand characters. Pounding a demon in the face with your bare fists until it dies just seems more brutal than a sword to me I guess.
I just love the idea of the class. Hand to hand, staves, holy, just seems fun to me. Opinions may vary of course.
I've just always liked hand to hand characters. Pounding a demon in the face with your bare fists until it dies just seems more brutal than a sword to me I guess.
Well, to quote the Flintstones, " A Judo, chop, chop, chop."
Not sure who is saying a monk wouldn't be a good addition to D3. Monks are one of the baddest classes in D&D, they need next to nothing and have mad skills. I think a monk properly done would be and ass kicking character, a good alternative to not bringing back the assassin.
I'm noit really sure if we still have the tree system. If we do, I think all class will have divison similar to the barbarian and the wiz (all trees have both passives, offensive, suport and defensive skills).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And are you offended by that? If so... I'm sorry.
You know I like you right?
Just that your arguments aren't really arguments.
They're scenarios you run through your head.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
What?
The only way to compare two completely different fighters is to run a simulation through your head?
Wow... ok.
Obviously discussing advantages and disatvantages is not a viable way of comparison.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
Oh yeah, and you running a simulation is as scientific as it gets, right?
And you are... the... warner brother?
Btw, enjoy your infraction point for the arguing. Next time gets you a short ban.
Ok this will probably be worth a ban but - get that stick out of your behind.
So we're arguing - so what? Show me the forum rule which says ARGUING is not allowed?
This is an almost civil discussion (a few exceptions occured, but we worked that out) - but not one full of flaming and cursing. We have different opinions and we try to show each other the error of the others ways.
And showing you a little respect? That's more than you deserve as far as I see.
There it is
Sorry for playing admin here, it's just that this guys piss me off
It makes no sense because you don't have any idea of wtf are you talking about. You are simply expeculating based at your fancy imagination. Someone stalks other backs during battle is something fucking ridicolous. The *only* thing that can defeat a shield user in battle is another shield user or a fire weapon user. I will try to explain why:
Shields blocks most of the attacks possibilities leaving only a small amount of possible attacks to the enemy. This drastical reduction of possibilities makes very easy to defender dogde the other attacks.
The shield also gives a powerful offensive edge over the enemy, once he can enter in the attack radius of the enemy without been severely counter attacked. Also, shieds makes the act of attack increase his defence (unlike someone that only counts of dogding/parrying that looses almost all defensive power while attacking), because the area covered by the shield increase as the user gets closer to the enemy. Because of that, if a shield user face a unshielded enemy he will have alot more attack oportunity wich means he will kill the enemy first.
And I'm not familiar with the whip scenarium, but I will research a bit when I have time.
Also i'm only talking about a generic shield user and a generic non shield user. The difference will drastically increase when we put a soldier in one side and a non soldier in the other. The very fact that ones trains to kill people and the other trains to live longer and bettes says everything.
EDIT: Sorry the admin warning was posted when i was writing the mensage. Do i have to delete this?
No. It may stay as you are not directly provoking hostility or engaging in it yourself. You are debating rather than arguing.
Aight aight, I see what you're saying. And yeah, lol, I was probably wrong about the stalking thing. That was the stretches of my imagination.
Probably, the most scientific we could be, would be to get a group together and discuss the most likely plan of action each would take, given a certain scenario, then the other countering that, and then countering that, and so on and so forth, until someone died.
PS: What's an infraction point?
Edit: Misspelled scenario, noticed when I sent it.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
If diablo would follow reality, anyone without a shield would die very very easy. Games don't only add fictional stuff but twsit reality to creat a better gameplay.
About a monk in D3? Yeah. I believe we can have one because he fits the melee and the benevolent role at once (like the paladin), still with very differently. A mele clas that use staff as main weapon would be very nice to bring some new air to rpgs imo.
I've just always liked hand to hand characters. Pounding a demon in the face with your bare fists until it dies just seems more brutal than a sword to me I guess.
Well, to quote the Flintstones, " A Judo, chop, chop, chop."