Reminds me of the WAR engineer, sounds pretty much just like 'em.
Similar both have strong IPs that fit having an engineer. In terms of combat mechanic, engi's could be a g8 class but were comparatively limited by a narrow range of contexts in which they had a sweet spot eg very team-dependent and lame against some other classes and just too stationary/defensive. By contrast this point was raised:
Jon Peters: No, they don't have a minimum distance - but he is not the sturdiest profession. He is not a Warrior! And so he tries to stay away, and he has a lot of stuff on his pistol and rifle that tends to let him do this. So the pistol for instance has a glue shot that he can shoot down at the ground that sticks guys he tries to get away from. The rifle has an overcharge shot, where he launches the enemy back and pushes himself back at the same time to give himself distance.
But then on top of that, if you really want to be a "in your face!!!11"-Engineer, the flamethrower is pretty much the goto weapon for you.
Eric Flannum: Also the bomb kit! The way it works: it gives you a number of bombs that you can use. When you use a Bomb it is placed at the Engineers feet and then it explodes a second later. And so the bomb kit is also a kid that is good for running around and sort of blowing things up while you're running around in the midst of you enemies.
And the Engineers also have an ability if they want to cause even more problems for enemies up close. They have an ability where they can spray oil on the ground which causes anyone who crosses it to slip and be knocked down. So engineers have a variety of ways of dealing with people who are up close to them.
...
DeBussy: One of the key elements of Guild Wars 2 is the fast paced and movement oriented combat system. How well will this work with the stationary turrets of the engineer. I remember most of the classes in other MMOs, which rely on stationary items, always had their fair share of problems whenever there was a lot of movement involved.
Eric Flannum: The main way the Engineer works with that is, that he can get up close to people but he still doesn't want to stand toe to toe with them. He tends to want to weave in and out between them. And the turrets are able to support him while he is doing that. It is like the turrets support the engineer as well. The Engineer can be played as a bit more of a stationary profession if you want to play him that way.
But for example the rifle with the Engineer has a lot of things that encourage movement. With the Engineer rifle you have that one ability Jon talked about that knocks an enemy back. You also have an ability, which causes you to leap quickly from one spot to another - and you do AOE damage when you leave the spot and you do AOE damage when you land. It also has a couple of different shots that operate at different ranges. Your basic attack on the rifle is a long range shot and your most damaging attack is more of a close range shot. The rifle Engineer for example is always trying to do this dance where he is getting in close to do his big attack and then trying to pop back out. By either immobilizing his enemy or moving away himself. And so the Engineer has a lot of movement in that way.
I have never played GW so I assume it was pure fantasy world ?
I wasn't sure about that golem/robot thing, but I actually start to like that idea of steam punk renaissance. I love blowing things up so the thief might have a new competition for my main class in GW2.
I have never played GW so I assume it was pure fantasy world ?
I wasn't sure about that golem/robot thing, but I actually start to like that idea of steam punk renaissance. I love blowing things up so the thief might have a new competition for my main class in GW2.
250 years is a long time for technological advancement.
I have never played GW so I assume it was pure fantasy world ?
I wasn't sure about that golem/robot thing, but I actually start to like that idea of steam punk renaissance. I love blowing things up so the thief might have a new competition for my main class in GW2.
250 years is a long time for technological advancement.
How sad that we must have a Warhammer Online charactor in GW2, I suppose those that are new to Guildwars will be praising this class but i doubt many old players will like it.
So much for the vision of the future.
Oh, like the 'Thief' and other already announced class were 'all that'. It's all in the way it 'Plays'. They can slap any class in there, bottom line is the game play.
________________________ "If RL was an MMO, I'd probably be getting laid more often..."
romanator0 , thx for the fast reply, yea defently makes sense. Really hope, after they release info on their last class, that we will receive news about a demo atleast
Looking forward to trying the class. I don't understand the hostility towards the idea from some people. The fantasy genre is not restricted to the same old boring sword and sorcery tropes we've seen a million times before, and if you don't like the idea of it then play a class that doesn't use technology. If it's a realism issue, that has always been a problem with MMOs. The genre is full of immersion-breaking absurdity and things that just don't make sense, but it's guns that do it in for you?
Everybody has their tastes and I'll give that the class is interesting. Although guns and more modern technology has never been an interest for me to blend with fantasy.
My tastes and things like this will keep me from playing it, but old dogs and their tastes won't be missed within the whirlwind of the future. I give the game props for the look and design. It's a beautiful game. Seeing this however throws off my interest in it. We can talk about why I should or shouldn't give it a try all day, but certain things turn people off to other people and the same is for entertainment. This is a turn off and always has been for me.
@ Dubhlaith - You are absolutely correct it's not new. It's an idea that has been in pen and paper games for a long time. Funny enough to me is that concepts like Shadowrun which blend future with magic and fantasy races doesn't bother me. Maybe because their visions of the future are so corrupt how can you ruin it with magic. While on the same note a more traditional looking fantasy feels corrupted when you throw firearms into the mix. Maybe it has to do with the loss of simplicity, or something. I don't know really.
I'm not a purist, but I rarely see how a set of armor is going to stand up to firearms. That's why our ancestors changed their tactics and way of thinking when guns came into war. Armor became obsolete when you can launch a projectile faster than the human eye can see which can puncture steel like a ice pick through an alluminum can.
Reminds me of Final Fantasy with Cloud. When I saw him facing guards armed with full auto machine guns and he's carrying a man sized meat cleaver it just kind of says he's over matched and is going to end up with a lot of holes. I never favored Final Fantasy and that made me favor it even less.
I wonder if there is a point where some people see a concept and think wow that is some cool fantasy there. Then there comes another farther step into it and that person shrinks away from it thinking now your just throwing stuff in there to look cool. I think this class just reached this point for me with this game. It's a taste thing that's all it is. I wouldn't tell anyone to eat vanilla ice cream if they didn't like the taste of it.
You're too logical, loosen up a bit and fall into the craziness. Logic is not needed in fantasy or games. Even with your overly logicalness what you fail to realize is that GW2 is set in the same time period as say early Assassins Creed 2 but with magic... and magic can block bullets... so warriors can survive bullet attacks(?).. bah nvm. Its a game, its a story, its a world. It is not bound by logic.
As a class by itself in the GW2 world, the engineer is fine. There is extreme cognitive dissonance when you compare it against, say the ranger.
Why are they still using bows? Guns are much, much easier to use, easier to aim, has more range, better penetration, better firing rate...better than a bow in everyway except for manufacture. And the obsolescence of armor as stated by another poster.
So...I'm not surprised some people get a feeling of something is not right when guns are introduced. Seeing a bow being as effective as a main weapon? Weird man. It is up to the individual if they can ignore that feeling, like say a movie with plot holes.
Personally, if they wanted to keep bows, the guns should have been crossbows. If they wanted guns, everybody should use guns.
Originally posted by Zeroxin
*snip*
u're too logical, loosen up a bit and fall into the craziness. Logic is not needed in fantasy or games. Even with your overly logicalness what you fail to realize is that GW2 is set in the same time period as say early AC2 but with magic... and magic can block bullets... so warriors can survive bullet attacks(?).. bah nvm. Its a game, its a story, its a world. It is not bound by logic.
So...wrong. Everyone, even you, goes into a game accepting a set of assumptions, and then you expect it to follow logically based on those assumptions. What if they made bows do melee damage, and punches do ranged damage? Even you would have cognitive dissonance.
As a class by itself in the GW2 world, the engineer is fine. There is extreme cognitive dissonance when you compare it against, say the ranger.
Why are they still using bows? Guns are much, much easier to use, easier to aim, has more range, better penetration, better firing rate...better than a bow in everyway except for manufacture. And the obsolescence of armor as stated by another poster.
So...I'm not surprised some people get a feeling of something is not right when guns are introduced. Seeing a bow being as effective as a main weapon? Weird man. It is up to the individual if they can ignore that feeling, like say a movie with plot holes.
Personally, if they wanted to keep bows, the guns should have been crossbows. If they wanted guns, everybody should use guns.
Have you seen the stuff rangers can pull off? Did you watch the videos? When's the last time you saw someone with an actual bow rapid fire eight arrows at a time in a perfect spread? Or conjure a ring of fire that would actually set them alight (hint: This would not happen if you actually fired an arrow through a fire)? Why can we accept this, but we can't accept that bows can be superior or comparable to guns in this world for certain purposes?
Imo engineer fits gw2 lore, love it or hate it - there are 2 technologicly advanced races. If i could make suggestion for arenanet it would be that asura should use some kind of golem instead of backpack.
some things are just obvious.. tbh.. i kind of agree with him.. everything about this sounds too much like one of the dev's has been playing too much team fortress.. .. its an interesting idea.. but i don't think it should have seen the light of day.. it just has epic fail written in big dayglo lettering over it.... hope they rethink this one.
Have you seen the stuff rangers can pull off? Did you watch the videos? When's the last time you saw someone with an actual bow rapid fire eight arrows at a time in a perfect spread? Or conjure a ring of fire that would actually set them alight (hint: This would not happen if you actually fired an arrow through a fire)? Why can we accept this, but we can't accept that bows can be superior or comparable to guns in this world for certain purposes?
If a bow can do all that (assuming that magic helps) why do we need guns? Why go through the R&D and manufacturing to get something inferior? Why couldn't a ranger infuse a gun with the same magic with a more efficient weapon? Why wouldn't they?
People are arguing that because the lore includes advances in technology, the gun is viable. Given that, it has to be instrinsically better than a bow. It's a product of better technology. Do I have to say it again?
And to answer your last question, once again, the gun is a product of advanced technology, developed for the same purpose as a bow, to kill things. It goes against the assumptions of the game, unless there is specific lore saying magic can't be use with guns for some reason.
Have you seen the stuff rangers can pull off? Did you watch the videos? When's the last time you saw someone with an actual bow rapid fire eight arrows at a time in a perfect spread? Or conjure a ring of fire that would actually set them alight (hint: This would not happen if you actually fired an arrow through a fire)? Why can we accept this, but we can't accept that bows can be superior or comparable to guns in this world for certain purposes?
If a bow can do all that (assuming that magic helps) why do we need guns? Why go through the R&D and manufacturing to get something inferior? Why couldn't a ranger infuse a gun with the same magic with a more efficient weapon? Why wouldn't they?
People are arguing that because the lore includes advances in technology, the gun is viable. Given that, it has to be instrinsically better than a bow. It's a product of better technology. Do I have to say it again?
And to answer your last question, once again, the gun is a product of advanced technology, developed for the same purpose as a bow, to kill things. It goes against the assumptions of the game, unless there is specific lore saying magic can't be use with guns for some reason.
the crossbow funnily enough was invented to be able to punch through plate armour.. plus the factor that it was easier to use than a bow (less skill required to hit the target) which was superceded once the musket was invented.. which also was why cannon replaced trebuchets.. treating bullets the same way you treat arrows.. is exactly what WoW does... sadly..
Have you seen the stuff rangers can pull off? Did you watch the videos? When's the last time you saw someone with an actual bow rapid fire eight arrows at a time in a perfect spread? Or conjure a ring of fire that would actually set them alight (hint: This would not happen if you actually fired an arrow through a fire)? Why can we accept this, but we can't accept that bows can be superior or comparable to guns in this world for certain purposes?
If a bow can do all that (assuming that magic helps) why do we need guns? Why go through the R&D and manufacturing to get something inferior? Why couldn't a ranger infuse a gun with the same magic with a more efficient weapon? Why wouldn't they?
People are arguing that because the lore includes advances in technology, the gun is viable. Given that, it has to be instrinsically better than a bow. It's a product of better technology. Do I have to say it again?
And to answer your last question, once again, the gun is a product of advanced technology, developed for the same purpose as a bow, to kill things. It goes against the assumptions of the game, unless there is specific lore saying magic can't be use with guns for some reason.
The answer is, as I was trying to imply with my post, that we are not after real world realism, we are after fantasy. The real world is boring. That's why we come up with worlds where we wield magic and martial skills greater than any real life warrior. Do you want an MMO where you need a squire who cleans all of the urine, sweat, blood, and sometimes feces out of your armor after a battle? Most of us leave that part out because it's not fun. It's a turn-off. In fact in most games you can even swim in plate armor, you wear it 24/7 with no issues whatsoever.
In the real world being grievously wounded takes you out of battle potentially for weeks and there is a serious danger of succumbing to infection during recovery, not to mention loss of limbs and potentially permanently hindered mobility. In fantasy, a healer casts simple spell effortlessly and it's like you were never injured. How does that make sense? If they can so easily do that, why can they not conjure a shield better than any plate armor, making non-magical fighters completely obsolete? Let's not even get into the fact that you can die, yet you always come back fully unharmed, making the idea of death laughable.
Saying that the rules of realism apply to fantasy technology but not to magic or anything else is a gigantic double standard. If you just don't like the idea of tech in your fantasy then that's fine, it's personal preference, but don't come up with something like this acting like your opinion on the matter is objective.
If I try the game (at some point) this is the only class that seems interesting to me. It doesn't exactly sell the game to me but at least there would now be a class I'd be interested in.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
How sad that we must have a Warhammer Online charactor in GW2, I suppose those that are new to Guildwars will be praising this class but i doubt many old players will like it.
So much for the vision of the future.
I was just thinking the same thing. This is the first thing I've read about GW2 which I'm not keen on.
I hope there is a subtle magical or alchemical element to this class. It'd would be hard to fathom that these mines' and turrets' motion sensing capabilities are pure technology.
It looks like a fun class, it really does. But did we need another gun class? Guns for everyone! Each class has decent ranged options that's for sure. Healing turret is a nice touch, maybe a guardian / engineer will be the "healer" class even though there isn't a "healer" class in the game... Still excited about the game but this is my least favorite revelation yet...
oh and to the gun vs. bow debate -- when guns were first created they were much more expensive to manufacture, reload and train with than bows. Not to mention bows were more accurate and had better range. It wasn't until the cartridge and barrel rifling did the gun start to surpass -- hence the massive lines of people firing at each other point-blank.
All the gun, grenade and "too much technology!" bickering made me realize most of the people following GW2 haven't actually played GW or read the books. Both books clearly narrated that we were going to have some level of technology. So don't sound so surprised.
Games like this are meant to relate to reality, not be dictated by it. 250 years. That's should be enough time to go from starting to understand gun powder and fire arms to using them in combat settings with more lethal designs.
This is fantasy. It's all about being outside the box.
Comments
Similar both have strong IPs that fit having an engineer. In terms of combat mechanic, engi's could be a g8 class but were comparatively limited by a narrow range of contexts in which they had a sweet spot eg very team-dependent and lame against some other classes and just too stationary/defensive. By contrast this point was raised:
Thread: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/316314/Interview-Jon-Peters-and-Eric-Flannum-talk-about-the-engineer.html
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Naw they will just make the mesmer as downloadable content for the low price of $9.95.
I have never played GW so I assume it was pure fantasy world ?
I wasn't sure about that golem/robot thing, but I actually start to like that idea of steam punk renaissance. I love blowing things up so the thief might have a new competition for my main class in GW2.
250 years is a long time for technological advancement.
Exactly!
I mean just take a look at our own world ..
From 1750 ~ 2000. :P
Gaming is a passion.
Oh, like the 'Thief' and other already announced class were 'all that'. It's all in the way it 'Plays'. They can slap any class in there, bottom line is the game play.
________________________
"If RL was an MMO, I'd probably be getting laid more often..."
Sounds awesome. I am definitely interested in this profession to increase viability in pvp with the tools of this trade.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
romanator0 , thx for the fast reply, yea defently makes sense. Really hope, after they release info on their last class, that we will receive news about a demo atleast
Looking forward to trying the class. I don't understand the hostility towards the idea from some people. The fantasy genre is not restricted to the same old boring sword and sorcery tropes we've seen a million times before, and if you don't like the idea of it then play a class that doesn't use technology. If it's a realism issue, that has always been a problem with MMOs. The genre is full of immersion-breaking absurdity and things that just don't make sense, but it's guns that do it in for you?
The community has been asking for steampunk elements in the game, btw. Just saying.
You're too logical, loosen up a bit and fall into the craziness. Logic is not needed in fantasy or games. Even with your overly logicalness what you fail to realize is that GW2 is set in the same time period as say early Assassins Creed 2 but with magic... and magic can block bullets... so warriors can survive bullet attacks(?).. bah nvm. Its a game, its a story, its a world. It is not bound by logic.
This is not a game.
As a class by itself in the GW2 world, the engineer is fine. There is extreme cognitive dissonance when you compare it against, say the ranger.
Why are they still using bows? Guns are much, much easier to use, easier to aim, has more range, better penetration, better firing rate...better than a bow in everyway except for manufacture. And the obsolescence of armor as stated by another poster.
So...I'm not surprised some people get a feeling of something is not right when guns are introduced. Seeing a bow being as effective as a main weapon? Weird man. It is up to the individual if they can ignore that feeling, like say a movie with plot holes.
Personally, if they wanted to keep bows, the guns should have been crossbows. If they wanted guns, everybody should use guns.
So...wrong. Everyone, even you, goes into a game accepting a set of assumptions, and then you expect it to follow logically based on those assumptions. What if they made bows do melee damage, and punches do ranged damage? Even you would have cognitive dissonance.
Hope this game comes out soon. Current MMOs just not doing it for me.
Have you seen the stuff rangers can pull off? Did you watch the videos? When's the last time you saw someone with an actual bow rapid fire eight arrows at a time in a perfect spread? Or conjure a ring of fire that would actually set them alight (hint: This would not happen if you actually fired an arrow through a fire)? Why can we accept this, but we can't accept that bows can be superior or comparable to guns in this world for certain purposes?
Imo engineer fits gw2 lore, love it or hate it - there are 2 technologicly advanced races. If i could make suggestion for arenanet it would be that asura should use some kind of golem instead of backpack.
some things are just obvious.. tbh.. i kind of agree with him.. everything about this sounds too much like one of the dev's has been playing too much team fortress.. .. its an interesting idea.. but i don't think it should have seen the light of day.. it just has epic fail written in big dayglo lettering over it.... hope they rethink this one.
If a bow can do all that (assuming that magic helps) why do we need guns? Why go through the R&D and manufacturing to get something inferior? Why couldn't a ranger infuse a gun with the same magic with a more efficient weapon? Why wouldn't they?
People are arguing that because the lore includes advances in technology, the gun is viable. Given that, it has to be instrinsically better than a bow. It's a product of better technology. Do I have to say it again?
And to answer your last question, once again, the gun is a product of advanced technology, developed for the same purpose as a bow, to kill things. It goes against the assumptions of the game, unless there is specific lore saying magic can't be use with guns for some reason.
the crossbow funnily enough was invented to be able to punch through plate armour.. plus the factor that it was easier to use than a bow (less skill required to hit the target) which was superceded once the musket was invented.. which also was why cannon replaced trebuchets.. treating bullets the same way you treat arrows.. is exactly what WoW does... sadly..
The answer is, as I was trying to imply with my post, that we are not after real world realism, we are after fantasy. The real world is boring. That's why we come up with worlds where we wield magic and martial skills greater than any real life warrior. Do you want an MMO where you need a squire who cleans all of the urine, sweat, blood, and sometimes feces out of your armor after a battle? Most of us leave that part out because it's not fun. It's a turn-off. In fact in most games you can even swim in plate armor, you wear it 24/7 with no issues whatsoever.
In the real world being grievously wounded takes you out of battle potentially for weeks and there is a serious danger of succumbing to infection during recovery, not to mention loss of limbs and potentially permanently hindered mobility. In fantasy, a healer casts simple spell effortlessly and it's like you were never injured. How does that make sense? If they can so easily do that, why can they not conjure a shield better than any plate armor, making non-magical fighters completely obsolete? Let's not even get into the fact that you can die, yet you always come back fully unharmed, making the idea of death laughable.
Saying that the rules of realism apply to fantasy technology but not to magic or anything else is a gigantic double standard. If you just don't like the idea of tech in your fantasy then that's fine, it's personal preference, but don't come up with something like this acting like your opinion on the matter is objective.
If I try the game (at some point) this is the only class that seems interesting to me. It doesn't exactly sell the game to me but at least there would now be a class I'd be interested in.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I was just thinking the same thing. This is the first thing I've read about GW2 which I'm not keen on.
I hope there is a subtle magical or alchemical element to this class. It'd would be hard to fathom that these mines' and turrets' motion sensing capabilities are pure technology.
It looks like a fun class, it really does. But did we need another gun class? Guns for everyone! Each class has decent ranged options that's for sure. Healing turret is a nice touch, maybe a guardian / engineer will be the "healer" class even though there isn't a "healer" class in the game... Still excited about the game but this is my least favorite revelation yet...
oh and to the gun vs. bow debate -- when guns were first created they were much more expensive to manufacture, reload and train with than bows. Not to mention bows were more accurate and had better range. It wasn't until the cartridge and barrel rifling did the gun start to surpass -- hence the massive lines of people firing at each other point-blank.
grenades? well....
BUT, but but butbutututbutubtutbutbutbtubut
it's a game...
All the gun, grenade and "too much technology!" bickering made me realize most of the people following GW2 haven't actually played GW or read the books. Both books clearly narrated that we were going to have some level of technology. So don't sound so surprised.
Games like this are meant to relate to reality, not be dictated by it. 250 years. That's should be enough time to go from starting to understand gun powder and fire arms to using them in combat settings with more lethal designs.
This is fantasy. It's all about being outside the box.
I would want to make one of every class, so I'm hoping that they have accomodations for buying character slots to do that.
Alt-a-holic!