(10-12-2017, 01:26 PM)Sir Baron Wrote: Hmm
Aside from Winter's post that it's not a good argument no one has said anything to deny my post
It takes skill but how much?
There is danger but is there any more for a new player then if they where peeking?
I feel that no amount of armor will save you if you lack skill
It's not a elitist stance
It's a blunt opinion
Any player can get the skill it takes
But most at least of those posting here don't seem to want to
Before I get told off because I have the best gear in game Woody and Kaas have better
Now some of you may remember Eyleen
She was the Master at playing cav and she had AB and pretty much all else was tier 4
Armor is not all there is and never will be
Who you are thinking about in that light is shielder
If armor is not all there is and never will be, why are you so against buffing it? (Although it seems a lot of people actually just want the damage reduction which effectively transfers to an increase in hit points rather than armor that will make Nords bounce off of you, as previously explained).
The argument that others just aren't skilled enough and that is why they feel infantry is underpowered fails on every level. I see that you want to double down on it, so I will explain why it is a poor argument:
When Ragnarok was first introduced, people could beat it but it took 2 hours+, required Resurrection Tomes to be used constantly (no Tome limit other than how many the server could take before crashing / warping the map), and had waves that people barreled completely rather than fight and risk a wipe an hour and a half into the run. However, people *could* beat it. Would it have been fair to tell everyone complaining that they just weren't skilled enough?
When Duellist was introduced as a class, people complained that it was useless. However, there were those that were proficient in one-handed weapons and could still get top kills. Should it never have been turned into Legionnaire under the argument of people just aren't skilled enough?
Legionnaire started off with poor throwing skill and many people complained it took a ridiculous number of hits to kill enemies and had access to too few throwing weapons. Should it never have been buffed up to where it is now because people could still get top score with it and everyone else just wasn't skilled enough?
The Aurora Blade was once 50c and far outclassed by all of the other weapons. However, people including myself could still get top kills with it in Ragnarok mode. Should it have stayed at 50c and had all arguments blown off with "you just aren't skilled enough?"
The Prince used to have armor so strong that only blunt and pierce weapons could damage him regularly, and cut weapons had to be maneuvered to get maximum speed boost and accuracy (a hit to the head would inevitably fail). However, people could still beat him. Again, should it have been left that way because people just weren't using the right weapons and weren't skilled enough?
Items used to despawn, but with juggling they could be kept in the game. It took a team skilled in teamwork (or one very bored dedicated juggler) to achieve this. Should this have been kept in the game because players just weren't skilled enough to remember to keep the items shuffled?
Ranger and Halberdier used to have significantly less armor than they do now and much less access to various infantry items that have been shared to them. People complained that the classes didn't feel like they were worth playing and were underpowered as options. I suppose that since I could get top kills as Halberdier (never made a Ranger, don't like archer) they should have never received any buffs because others just weren't skilled enough.
I can keep going if you want, but I think at this point it is more than enough.
I'm very disappointed that we have spent 20 pages to reach the conclusion that people just aren't as good at infantry as Baron, so they are all wrong and he is right.