I did not misquote. I stated my opinion. You misinterpreted my opinion. I corrected your misinterpretation and then went on to say my correction was irrelevant, which would never have come up if you didn't misinterpret me in the first place. And please don't call me a troll, I'm trying to present my side of the argument the best I can.
Ok... here is exactly how you misquoted me:
You entered into this discussion with the following:
or warriors can do really good melee dmg and less ranged, but use ranged when the situation calls for it and a ranger can do really good ranged and less melee using melee only when the situation calls for it. When you pick one of these classes you're picking one of these play styles. There could very well be a mix of these in one of the next 4 professions like the magic wielding soldier everyone is rooting for. I still hold firm though that if you pick a warrior expect to have better melee dmg and if you pick a ranger expect to have better ranged dmg. Yes I am aware that in GW you had some pretty sick builds that's contradicting to this statement, but in this game there are no cross professions.
This is why you are misquoting me. THIS POST, and indeed your entire view on "weather a ranger should be better at range while a warrior is better at melee" is a completely tangental topic that has absolutely no barring on the current discussion regarding the Split - Stat issue between Strength and Agility.
None. What. So. Ever.
Hence, why I said that the topic that YOU introduced, and continued to defend and derail the thread with, was and is irrelevant
to this discussion, which hinges on the idea that an profession should not be tied to one stat or another for their various weapon choices.
Weather a ranger deals over 9,000 damage with a bow while a warrior hits for 1 is NOT what we are discussing in this thread.
We ARE discussing weather it makes sense to unfairly penalize a ranged weaponry + melee weaponry selection based on the stat system as-is, which is a FACT. Not an oppinion, not some fluffy "we can't think for our selves because we lack data" statement, but cold hard fact with simple, blunt logic to back it up.
If you wield a Rifle and a Greatsword as a warrior, you WILL NOT have as much stats devoted toward either weapon's skills than if you had gone two melee or two range, in the current system. Further more, this is NOT the case for casters, who will have uniform function with Intelligence and all of their weapons.
Hence why people are saying this is a problem.
If you want to call it a disadvantage, then it's a disadvantage. I obviously won't convince you otherwise. But I think you're severely underestimating the warrior's strength as a melee/ranged combatant even if the melee or ranged skills aren't as strong as a pure strength character or a pure agility character. Does not mean they wont be good enough for any one encounter. We don't even know how they've scaled the dmg on the skills of these weapons. Who knows, maybe a melee/ranged is as good as an ele, you could spec all strength and do a bit more dmg on melee but lose out on ranged skills or vice versa. Do we know if the attributes have a cap yet? idk about you but it seems to me they can hold their own.
Plus we can't even imagine how the attributes will intertwine with traits, armor, etc...
You don't have to convince facts. Thats the lovely thing about them, they are not open for discussion (provided they are indeed accurate facts).
We know that stats impact ability performance in some tangible way. Fact.
We know that melee weapons uses Strength while ranged weapons use Agility. Fact.
We know that, given both of these facts, which are true, provable, and therefore defendable at the time of this post, that a character who equips both a ranged and a melee weapon at the same time will be forced to draw from both stat pools, meaning that there is a OR choice not an AND choice with their weapon efficacy. I choose to focus more on my ranged OR my melee.
We know that the Scholar classes, thus far revealed, rely solely on their Intelligence stat for all of their weapons. This means they only have to deal with a singular stat pool.
The damage between professions is totally, utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as is the difficult of an encounter in PVE. Purely looking at the class in and of itself reveals internal balance issues.
You gain MORE bang for your buck by investing in Strength OR Agility, unless there is a very strong diminishing return and/or a low attribute threshold, but even then that is still wasting stats to "come to par" with a singular focus, while having less stats for Perception / Willpower / Vitality.
Edited by Kitsune, 30 August 2010 - 03:54 AM.