Just because people don’t agree with you, it doesn’t mean they’re discussing without “good faith” you type a lot of drivel and buzzwords but don’t exactly get to a proper point with someone who sees things differently than you.
Yes, Warriors and Samurai are a different archetype in JRPGs. Warriors tend to either be Sword or Axe wielding characters, while Samurai are Katana / Blade users.
Both generally have distinguishing animation sets and themes that get followed with each.
One is more brutal and upheaves the field, the other is more calculating. Both have wind ups for larger attacks, however they’re not going to follow the exact same themes.
You do realise it was an example of “what could” fit further into the Archetype given to Warriors already right to further accentuate their animations to be more flashy than current? But you’re one who like’s to quote one word and then go off on an entirely different note.
For someone crying about arguing in “good faith” you’re a touch hypocritical. Try reading and understanding context, formulate a logical reply that isn’t loaded with emotion.
its not a matter of agreeing or not, you are literally bringing bad faith arguments and fallacies because personal taste and biases. Like again bringing up the argument about 1:1 from the RTS, which was something i never made
Blademasters are warriors, that’s a fact, its not about me or you agreeing or not, there is a desire to have MORE of their thematic and abilities into the game, that? also a fact
If YOU don’t think they should, great, thats your opinion, that you already made us well aware off, whats the point of discussing your personal taste about Warriors with the overall discussion about the spec any further?
As you stated, no one will agree with each other in this point - if they should or should not do it - so, whats your reason? just to present yourself as the contrary party?
At least im more reasonable saying we should have BOTH thematics into the spec, with the spec tree - classic warrior and blademaster - that should be easy enough, but you are advocating TO NOT EVEN HAVE THE OPTION, because you don’t like it, instead of just not playing with it…
It is because you fear it will be meta and it will force you to get the talents that lean more into the blademaster, something you don’t like? Cause i discussed with a shaman that was exactly like you when it was proposed a permanent elemental pet option for the elemental spec, he was vehemently against it because he didn’t like pet specs and fear it would be meta, forcing him to take it.
Right because Katanas are not swords
Not like it rly matter since wow already integrated the samurai thematic into the warrior class, because you know, they are warriors.
Again, what have anything to do with the discussion? you are going on an entirely different tangent here.
Let me make my point clear, again:
Slayer spec should be renamed as Blademaster, Slayer strike and Relentless pursuit should be renamed and reworked to fit the thematic of Mirror Image and Wind Walk, call it Mirror Strike and Wind Pursuit for all i care.
When blizz move away from hero specs, and finally decide to rework the class and spec, - i think - they should lean MORE into the Blademaster fantasy AS WELL, making sure one branch of the Arms tree have Blademaster related skills - like the ones said above - for people to pick.
We have THREE paths with THREE different capstones, its bogus to think we cannot reserve one for a blademaster-like warrior with their skills toned down to fit WoW instead of the RTS, if you don’t like it, there is other two to fall in.
If you don’t like it, great, its up to blizzard to decide if they will implement that or not(funny how we not long ago literally had a talent called blademaster torment, that was removed cause too strong with slayer, so they are well aware that blademaster are warriors) but don’t pretend this doesn’t fit wow or warriors.
Funny to say that about loaded with emotion, when your entire post history about this subject can be summed in: “i don’t want it, i don’t want you to have it because i don’t like it”
Rest those shoulders mate you’re reaching hard, any further and you’re Arms will fall out of their sockets.
Someone coming in and disagreeing that there needs to be more of Blademaster’s theme integrated into a spec when it’s not entirely on brand for the Warrior in WoW’s variant which takes heavily from the Fighter / Warrior archetypes.
But your reading comprehension is taking everything as a slight and not an objective look from a different perspective.
Funny tangent trying to get the heat of yourself cause i was spot on, classic.
Except is is on brand for warrior in wow, already proved multiple times by blizzard themselves giving us Blademaster signature skill(Bladestorm), giving blademaster related skills(Blademaster torment), making bladematers warrior Trainers(Rokanada) making Blademasters tagged as arms warrior in the game(Lantressor) and even making blademasters use plate AND use the rest of their toolkit(Jubei’thos).
Its almost like… the game have precedence, the lore support it, and we just need blizzard goodwill to implement… But you are hardcoded in the idea the game simple cannot evolve and cannot change to have MORE support of that archetype, because you yourself don’t like it and cant see how it is already in the game.
you are limiting yourself thinking there is no way they would do that, because “that is not a thing at all”, your point comes from a false premise.
Yeah, and we finish with veiled insults, i clearly did hit the right spot when i mentioned you fear that if they make arms more into blademaster and it end up more viable than the other options.
Like i said, it is exactly what the shaman did with the permanent pet as option, the difference is he admitted
I can’t be the only one seeing the irony in these two sentences following one another right?
I’m having weird déjà vu with this sentence
Oh that’s why.
Syegfryed buddy, How did you manage to read what Greìl said and then immediately think that it was an insult? He’s just saying you’re making assumptions on what others wrote. You just proved his point.
I mean this in the most respectful way possible but please take a step back, you seem far to invested into this and you’re seeing conflict where there is none.
I guess your your reading comprehension is taking as irony instead of looking at it objectively, let me explain to you:
There is a complete difference between saying there are people who want X and saying X is UNDESIRABLE BY MOST;
1 - The first bit make a broad statement saying there are people with that desire, it doesn’t put quantity into the equation, it doesn’t make any absurd claim, just state that there are people who want it, that’s just a fact, proven by me and people who liked my post about the idea, we want it, therefore there is a desire for that, something we can confirm. I never claimed is something is wanted by most.
2- The second, makes a claim with quantity, it state the something is undesirable by most of the players, besides having no way to confirm that claim, since it is impossible to quantify how many players are up or against that, so you can’t say that is or that isn’t desirable by majority.
…are you actually thinking i copied a response from you? a bit narcissistic isn’t? yesh,
If walk and quack like a duck, im pretty sure is a duck
Nah, i think i stay where i am, im invested in the conversation as much as people on it, you know it takes two to tango right?
Well, one’s a game of a given genre, the other a rank and title. So unless owning a DnD game makes you a wizard, Hairy…
Though you’re still making evident that you don’t know what samurai were… that claim was never made.
And into the Warrior aspect. Distinctly. Generally purposely mirrored against each other. See Cloud (Warrior aesthetic) vs. Sephiroth (Samurai aesthetic), fcs. They are purposeful contrasts even in purely Japanese period films (e.g., even where use of katana is the norm).
JRPG and their tropes themselves obsessively make that distinction more than most:
Thin fast-moving Ronin kills the big bad armored, ground-shattering Warrior with a death by a thousand cuts.
Lean, agile dude with neither armor nor useful guard breaks through the enemies guard not with strength, but mere speed and precision.
Who needs basket hilts or shields when you have marginally more reach and a cooler haircut (and physics-defying sudden soul-speed)? Snipe that hand right off you anyways.
Lean agile dudes with little to no armor attempt to quickly cut down the hulking berserker… and get bissected en masse.
Cuts that would down another lean, agile combatant just make the big bad angrier and seemingly stronger.
According to the very RPGs you’re talking about, no. They purposely distinguish between more agility-synergetic swords and all others. You get “our swords” vs. “everyone else’s swords”.
Or, in DnD, you get “(western) one-handed swords”, “(western) two-handed swords”, “scimitars”, and “katana”, because apparently anything more “eccentric” than a classically known Arabian or Japanese blade would be too much for larper brains?
And, frankly, though katana, dao, messer, claymore, khopesh, and falx are each just a generic word for swords/blades in their respective languages, if each is about as different from one another as an axe is from a halberd or a halberd from a spear.
Ahh, yes, the old “If you don’t agree with my shoving a particular archetype into what Japanese media portrays as its opposite, your conclusion could only possibly come from bias.” I haven’t seen that one since… wait, it’s only been a few weeks… and it was pulling that last time, too.
No, those are the explicit bounds we have available to work within. That’s all your getting from Arms or Slayer — something that fits the remainder of what it means to be a Warrior.
The names aren’t the problem. Your explicitly wanting to give Warriors not just a thematic-visual component but the actual functionality of Stealth and Mirror Images just because you can’t understand the difference between in-culture commonalities and differences is the problem.
Again, no one disagreed with that.
This is, in essence, our situation thus far:
You: Exercise is good. Others: Agreed.
You: We should exercise hard enough to cause micro-tears. Others: Agreed.
You: Like, you should seriously be wrecked enough that you’re limping back to the car. Others: Yeah, sure. Fair enough.
You: Heck, we should exercise hard to rip our quads! Others: Um, no. That would cross a line of so much qualitative difference as to remove or reverse any benefit of your previous suggestions.
We still do. It’s right there for those actually playing the game.
And yet I guess Warriors somehow are not, however tormented, Warlords? Or does only half the choice node count now?
Okay, let’s try something. Let’s assume for a moment that Treyen is wholly serious:
Our little lizzie wants their shotgun Warrior (likely complete with a cowboy hat tier-set and Ravager being changed into a thermal grenade, but let’s not worry about that).
What’s it to you? Would you deny them even the OPTION?
And let’s say I want a Warrior in the vein of a race whose combatants always bond with a Spirit Beast, giving them access to magical powers therethrough, meaning that of course their Warriors do as well.
Would you deny me the OPTION of a magic-wielding pet-using Warrior? It’s just options, right? And if I can point at an example wherein the “warriors” of a given race really did use pets and magic (since all their combatants did), then surely, that belongs on “Warrior”, no?
If whether something is or is not ill-fit isn’t up for discussion (or, equally, if you insist on ignoring the contexts necessary for determining whether something is fitting or not) such that you need to fall back on “it’d just be an option anyways”, I would think you should at least be as prepared to lose some part of your options, no matter how nebulously fit they may be, as you have insisted is okay for others to lose in making room for your own. Space, after all, is limited.
Funny that you mention DND since in 5e samurai is a subclass for fighter
And in the Warcraft tabletop RPG Blademaster is a pretige class for horde warriors
You still failed, again and again to actually say what they are and how they are not warriors.
Literally, the Bushido, means the way of the warrior, its their warrior code, but keep saying how they are not warriors for some reason.
Oh, same way arms and fury contrast? and how can you just lean into different playstyles by picking different talents or transmogs?
neat concept
And in wow we can both, isn’t that neat
Then explain to me if its not bias, everything that you brough up is based ony our feelings, how do you THINK the class/spec should be, literally opinions.
SO?
If you YOU don’t like, its YOUR opinion, your problem, it is presented AS AN OPTION, don’t want it? don’t pick it, just don’t pretend this doesn’t fit into the game when literally can.
I know people tend to be a lot defensive regarding to changes and not wanting then, but too bad for you, its by changing we can have new stuff, new abilities that improve our gameplay
I bet you and others would be against stuff like dragon roar and the spear skill as well at first, if was presented by other players as well, because “it doesn’t make sense to warriors, who are not a magic class”, but everything fits when blizzard adds then, and we literally have the game to give us precedence for this skill with blademasters being warriors and warriors using blademaster skills.
No its not.
Talent was removed to me since is crap now
No, lets not try your lame equivalence fallacy, its not the same wanting more of what we already have versus something nonsensical and absurd
Blademasters ALREADY are in the game, they are warrior trainers(Rokanada), they are tagged as arms warriors(Lantressor) they are using plate armor and fighting with mirror images and windwalk(Ju’beithos)
Literally supported by the game, your comparison have nothing to be supported in wow
When you boil it all down you’re saying that Greìl cannot speak for the warrior community followed by you immediately trying to speak for the warrior community.
If it’s not clear enough yet
I’m not into anime or fighting cartoons, I am however a Warrior player why are you speaking for me?
Do as I say not as I do right?
Narcissistic? Me? No way I am way too awesome for that.
You seem to think everything is a slight, which once again just proves what Greìl said lmao.
That’s kinda the issue, you’re far more invested than anyone else is, to the point that you assume everything that calls you out is an insult.
Except thats also a lie, i never speaked by the communtiy since i never said if majority or minortiy would like something
I merely make a statement that there are people who want it, and thats a fact
Ok? did i say THE ENTIRE warrior fanbase enjoys? the i say MAJORITY of the fanbase enjoy it?
No i did not, i just said there are people who does, its entirely your fault for nitpicking a broad statement in a informal conversation and taking as a quantity measure, i never claimed quantity, he did.
Did you just try to gotcha without actually one? try to educate me and say how saying “people” a general term would mean majority?
People can be 5 individuals, for someone who talks about reading comprehension yours sure is lacking
here:
You said this at least 2 times, this is the third one, you are the one jumping into the discussion and pretend you are on a high horse, you are so good and im so bad, ye ye, want to add something else?
Funny to say pigeon chess when you literally just make an attempt of it
“the warrior fanbase” believe it or not includes the warrior fanbase.
Yes. That’s what “the warrior fanbase” means. Unless you denote that it’s only a portion of the fanbase it refers to the whole thing.
You don’t say I want a pizza if you only want a slice, you say I want a slice of pizza.
As I explained above it’s not a broad statement, it’s a fully inclusive statement. The fault lies on your end for not properly conveying what you meant, I am unfortunately (or fortunately) not a mind reader.
You keep using this expression but I don’t think you know what it means. It doesn’t work as a response when “I” a third party say that you’re seeing nonexistent slights. There is no “tango” to speak of unless you count people calling out your bs which isn’t a good outlook if I’m being honest.
You still can’t understand the difference between a broad statement versus claiming a quantity? jesus man
Again:
Yeah, and i never claimed it was the entire of the warrior fanbase.
Seriously you cannot actually understand basic concepts like this?
If i say 'women from japan are small" you will come with “ACAKSHUALLY I KNOW ONE WAMEN IN JAPAN THAT I 1.80M SO YOU ARE WRONG” ok, sure? never said all of then were, this is bad faith nitpicking when you have no point whatsoever.
Warrior fanbase does like it, if its minority or majority of the fanbase? i dunno, i cant make that guess
It is
Do you? it takes two people to discuss something
In this case, you 3 are discussing with me, what about you back off? if you stop now there is not going to need for me to respond to you as well
Se the other person is already writing to answer me, its not just me mate, open your eyes
“The ease of doing something is only as relevant as you’ve already proven its quality to be. If most won’t like it, ease of implementation would, at best, make it more threatening, not better.”
Note that I didn’t say it would be easy to implement either. I simply pointed out that your claim was, for the time, irrelevant. E.g.,
“Here, I can replace your tires for just $2000.”
“I’d rather you not. I just replaced them, I’m quite happy with them, and don’t want the cost.”
“No, don’t worry. I can do it in just 2 minutes. I’ll start right now!”
I’d really rather you not.
Fighter is by no means limited to the archetypes WoW uses for Warrior. It has literal Archer specializations. So unless you’re about to call an Arcane Archer a Warrior spec, too…
I already explained to you what a samurai literally means: a landed retainer. It has nothing to do with any unique style of combat or even military tradition.
If you want what distinguishes a samurai from the rank in file,
in wartime: generally greater training (spent predominantly on the bow, as it was seen as more skill-expressive and tremendously more effective in the sense that the one trained is less likely to be run through even while killing others even with greater positional flexibility), usually afforded by being born relatively rich to a combatative family,
in pre-Meiji peacetime: a classist/oligarchical cultural tradition similar to that of nobility across virtually any other feudal nation at the time and uniquely the right to carry weapons decorative of their office (again, as per nobility of nearly any other feudal nation of the time),
post-Meiji: a largely defunct pseudo-aristocrat that, as a relic of the previous age, stood largely opposite to the new national army but was able to get on the good sides of the peasantry to throw in a handful of little rebellions only because of the latter’s disgruntlement over the federal land reforms.
Samurai - One who accompanies (verb: samurau). Originally an assisting government official, paid in tenure (right over a land —and often an additional salary— in exchange for lifetime contracted service passed down to one’s heir, making the contracted family a member of aristocracy). During wartime, due to said wartime, it came to focus instead of duties of war, usually including accomplished officers, political connections still capable of recruiting or leading soldiers, or —as a general fallback— heads of military families (buke) for similar reasons.
Ronin – An unemployed or mercenary member formerly of the aristocracy (i.e., born to but at least temporarily ‘fallen’ from the samurai class).
Bushi – Someone who fights for a living, often but not necessarily with some indoctrination into synergetic cultural ethos, often but not necessarily from a buke (martial family).
Kachi – Low-ranking bushi.
Shibun – The warrior class in general.
As for fantasy reconstructions, even then the focus of a “samurai” (a cradle-to-grave salaried retainer) is simply opposite a “ronin” (no permanent employment) per the themes of “loyalty” vs. “independence” or more general “bushi” (professional fighters) per the themes of “landed tradition” vs. “pragmatism” or “aristocracy” vs. “the commons”.
Or, again, the quick agility-based bushi, samurai (bushi with tenure), or ronin (bushi who had but lost tenure) vs. the strength- and hardiness-based warrior/grunt/brute.
And how do you know it would not be easy to implement?
Do you work at blizzard? how do you know its not going to be for the better?
How do you know all of those things while you cant properly explain neither back up?
Blizzard a few expansions ago made a ranged hunter spec into melee, changing their ENTIRE gameplay, but you think they can’t add like, three talents in the arms spec to bring more of the Blademaster playstyle than what we already have?
Yeah, but it also have the ranger that is specialised for the archer and uses magic with hunters mark like our hunter
And its actually funny that you brought that up, people already mentioned how a 4th spec of warrior could be a ranged archer/gunner
And you know? yeah, it fits, i would be up for that, but that is a more drastic change than just supplementing more of what we already have with a different spice
So in short, a warrior
Its actually amusing how you are spinning this so hard, just to NOT acknowledge that the followers of the way of the warrior the ones who train in martial combat and different combat techniques, train with swords and blades, use armor, for ~~some reason, are not warriors
If you are going to put Samurai thematic into wow, they would not be rogues, hunters or monks, just saying, and you know which class is
And for Wow Fantasy, Blademasters - our inspired samurai - are legendary warriors of the burning blade clan, or warriors from other races who archive the pinnacle of swordsmanship like you can find blademasters amongst Draenei, Jyniu, Saberons, hell i think i even saw one Night elf blademaster as well
I do, however there is no distinction possible in the way you worded your post. The sentence you used needs a denotator if you want to present it as less than the whole.
It’s how the English language works.
Don’t worry I’ll address your Japanese woman example in a bit.
https://matteluno.fandom.com/wiki/Reverse_Card
Well I do happen to be 198 cm tall so someone who’s 180 cm tall is still small from my perspective so better luck next time?
But jokes aside, your chosen example is actually subject to a different rule set.
The statement Woman from Japan are small is accepted and recognized as describing the average because it falls under commonly known general knowledge. Japanese woman are on average smaller in stature compared to woman of other countries. This is publicly available knowledge based on verifiable statistics which makes it an exception to the prior rule.
Nothing about the Wow Warrior fandom falls even remotely close to general knowledge.
I don’t like saying the following since it’s very dismissive of the efforts needed to learn a language nor am I saying this to mock you or insult you but based on your posts you don’t seem to fully grasp English grammar.
No one can fault you for not not knowing certain rules or making mistakes, but doubling down on those mistakes after you’ve gotten an explanation as to why they’re wrong is not conductive to improvement.
Of course there is, because i never claimed majority or minority, i just made a broad statement
No matter what you try to twist here, its there for everyone to check
And that’s why in the English language we use “most” or “the entire” when we want to claim quantity(something i did not).
We can use this in various examples, “teachers are strict in their lessons” broad statement, doesn’t mean all teachers are.
And you know that how? because you don’t like it?
See you are trying to claim a number/quantity, in a informal discussion from a broad statement, because you don’t have a single point in this discussion, i mean, you literally came here to argue about that and basically beg for me to stop posting.
Me saying the warrior fanbase is into anime and cartoon stuff → inch 100% doesn’t mean most of then or the entirety, does not rly warrant you to nitpick about it derailing even more the thread from a subject you are not even discussing about
“i don’t want to be dismissive but already am…”
It is actually a classic internet strategy, “when you lack arguments mention grammar”, in a lame attempt to look better and belittle the other person, basic ad hominen.
I could say a number of things to “rebuke” this, but i will not go down on your level, and i will be the “big man”( get it? a joke cause you claim to be tall) and only focus on the argument in question, you can keep going