oh great so you just waltzed in fresh and act like you’ve got everything figured out, easy to look smart when you’re jumping on someone who’s already tired of arguing with fatwhale, you didn’t “interject your thoughts”. you just came in to dogpile
now you’re complaining that other people are agreeing with me. it’s not dogpiling when multiple people independently reach the same conclusion. maybe consider that if everyone keeps arriving at the same answer.
yes because thats the best way to beat down someone who refuses to accept the truth
once you see that nobody is on your side you’ll start to think why that is, and maybe hopefully see that your argument is flawed and that we’ve been trying to tell you why
also im not really even on his side, i disagree with removing the defense from shields because from a logical standpoint it doesnt make sense, i simply think that the penalty for equipping a shield (that is, decreased movement speed) shouldnt be able to get circumvented with an enchant
maybe if you weren’t all circlejerking each other in an echo chamber you’d realize you’re not actually right, you’re just louder, and yeah multiple people agreeing doesn’t make something true it just means multiple people are convinced by the same bullshit
oh so now you’re psychoanalyzing me. this is a forum argument about video game shields, you don’t get to act like you’re enlightening me when you’re just ganging up on someone
these people read the proposal and thought it made sense on its own merits. the only person who spent two days unconvinced is you, and you conceded twice before taking it back.
i love how you don’t wanna argue so you use a gif
did you respond to this or did i miss it
nothing to argue, you’ve yet to make any points as to why this suggestion shouldnt be implemented
turning it into a formal suggestion makes sense at this point. and i did respond, i said the weight scaling idea is solid but my main concern is tuning it so it can’t be bypassed with enchants. if ardent can still gut the penalty then it’s the same problem.
the restriction needs a floor that enchants can’t touch, if you can work that into the suggestion i’d back it.
wrong reply here.
lol all good, ill get started on it and you can reply if you’d like anything changed
sounds good, tag me when it’s up.
classes that use weapon: sacrafice 5 skills that would prob have better dps (shield skills have basically 0 range on their abilities and are a itty bit slower to be more difficult to approach targets to use those skills in the first place, though Ardent halfs that penalty, 50 down to 25)
anything that does NOT use weapons: gains the same defense other wep classes would get while sacrificing 0 good skills in return like the weapon classes do
and for mages mainly the speed penalty matters even less since their whole kit is long ranged anyways + some stupid abilities specifically designed to keep ppl away when they do reach close range
Weapons are penalized more for using the shields compared to the classes not even using that stat
what if we kept shields the same but also gave warriors a 4th slot
perfect solution and there are no flaws
could also just prevent other classes from being affected by any of the stats without the proper investments (some ppl might want it for vanity, so i’d just prevent it from affecting stats if they don’t have the investment)
suggestion is up and tagged you
incentivizes warriors to use them, but does not punish non-weapon classes from using them for little to no penalty (the point of this discussion)