<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_0710206</id>
	<title>Revisiting the "Holy Trinity" of MMORPG Classes</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261138800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A feature at Gamasutra examines one of the foundations of many MMORPGs &mdash; the idea that <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4219/rethinking\_the\_trinity\_of\_mmo\_.php">class roles within such a game fall into three basic categories</a>: tank, healer, and damage dealer. The article evaluates the pros and cons of such an arrangement and takes a look at some alternatives.
<i>"Eliminating specialized roles means that we do away with boxing a class into a single role. Without Tanks, each class would have features that would help them participate in and survive many different encounters like heavy armor, strong avoidance, or some class or magical abilities that allow them to disengage from direct combat. Without specialized DPS, all classes should be able to do damage in order to defeat enemies. Some classes might specialize in damage type, like area of effect (AoE) damage; others might be able to exploit enemy weaknesses, and some might just be good at swinging a sharpened bit of metal in the right direction at a rapid rate. This design isn't just about having each class able to fill any trinity role. MMO combat would feel more dynamic in this system. Every player would have to react to combat events and defend against attacks."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A feature at Gamasutra examines one of the foundations of many MMORPGs    the idea that class roles within such a game fall into three basic categories : tank , healer , and damage dealer .
The article evaluates the pros and cons of such an arrangement and takes a look at some alternatives .
" Eliminating specialized roles means that we do away with boxing a class into a single role .
Without Tanks , each class would have features that would help them participate in and survive many different encounters like heavy armor , strong avoidance , or some class or magical abilities that allow them to disengage from direct combat .
Without specialized DPS , all classes should be able to do damage in order to defeat enemies .
Some classes might specialize in damage type , like area of effect ( AoE ) damage ; others might be able to exploit enemy weaknesses , and some might just be good at swinging a sharpened bit of metal in the right direction at a rapid rate .
This design is n't just about having each class able to fill any trinity role .
MMO combat would feel more dynamic in this system .
Every player would have to react to combat events and defend against attacks .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A feature at Gamasutra examines one of the foundations of many MMORPGs — the idea that class roles within such a game fall into three basic categories: tank, healer, and damage dealer.
The article evaluates the pros and cons of such an arrangement and takes a look at some alternatives.
"Eliminating specialized roles means that we do away with boxing a class into a single role.
Without Tanks, each class would have features that would help them participate in and survive many different encounters like heavy armor, strong avoidance, or some class or magical abilities that allow them to disengage from direct combat.
Without specialized DPS, all classes should be able to do damage in order to defeat enemies.
Some classes might specialize in damage type, like area of effect (AoE) damage; others might be able to exploit enemy weaknesses, and some might just be good at swinging a sharpened bit of metal in the right direction at a rapid rate.
This design isn't just about having each class able to fill any trinity role.
MMO combat would feel more dynamic in this system.
Every player would have to react to combat events and defend against attacks.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487688</id>
	<title>Healing &amp; Tanking is why I still play WoW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many game make you kill stuff ? seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hundreds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... thousands<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... more probably.</p><p>I got sick of being a damage dealer in WoW dongeon in about 2 months, stop playing WoW, and a few months later, try on the healer job.</p><p>Oh my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a NEW GAMEPLAY, you're not just targetting a npc and start to click the same old icons you KNOW maximize your damage by now, again and again.</p><p>You actually have to think, to choose which target to heal first, and with what spells. To priorize, to make sure your timing is perfect, because a BIG HEAL 0.2 sec after a tank is dead is pretty damn useless.</p><p>And then I tried Tank<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... another new gameplay !!! you do damage yes, but it's in no way your priority, your priority is threath.</p><p>You're not trying to kill stuff you're making sure others doesn't get attacked, another bunch get aggroed by a healer of a dps, you've to react fast or your group get wiped, you've to analyse the patrols of the dongeon to know what group to pull first, put the right mark so the right target is getting killed in the right order (like enemy healer must die first)</p><p>So yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... everyone the same, no healing or tanking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... YEURK.<br>Pewpewpew if you like, but dont force me do to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many game make you kill stuff ?
seriously ... hundreds ... thousands ... more probably.I got sick of being a damage dealer in WoW dongeon in about 2 months , stop playing WoW , and a few months later , try on the healer job.Oh my ... a NEW GAMEPLAY , you 're not just targetting a npc and start to click the same old icons you KNOW maximize your damage by now , again and again.You actually have to think , to choose which target to heal first , and with what spells .
To priorize , to make sure your timing is perfect , because a BIG HEAL 0.2 sec after a tank is dead is pretty damn useless.And then I tried Tank ... another new gameplay ! ! !
you do damage yes , but it 's in no way your priority , your priority is threath.You 're not trying to kill stuff you 're making sure others does n't get attacked , another bunch get aggroed by a healer of a dps , you 've to react fast or your group get wiped , you 've to analyse the patrols of the dongeon to know what group to pull first , put the right mark so the right target is getting killed in the right order ( like enemy healer must die first ) So yeah ... everyone the same , no healing or tanking ... YEURK.Pewpewpew if you like , but dont force me do to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many game make you kill stuff ?
seriously ... hundreds ... thousands ... more probably.I got sick of being a damage dealer in WoW dongeon in about 2 months, stop playing WoW, and a few months later, try on the healer job.Oh my ... a NEW GAMEPLAY, you're not just targetting a npc and start to click the same old icons you KNOW maximize your damage by now, again and again.You actually have to think, to choose which target to heal first, and with what spells.
To priorize, to make sure your timing is perfect, because a BIG HEAL 0.2 sec after a tank is dead is pretty damn useless.And then I tried Tank ... another new gameplay !!!
you do damage yes, but it's in no way your priority, your priority is threath.You're not trying to kill stuff you're making sure others doesn't get attacked, another bunch get aggroed by a healer of a dps, you've to react fast or your group get wiped, you've to analyse the patrols of the dongeon to know what group to pull first, put the right mark so the right target is getting killed in the right order (like enemy healer must die first)So yeah ... everyone the same, no healing or tanking ... YEURK.Pewpewpew if you like, but dont force me do to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490268</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get out of here, you HOBO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get out of here , you HOBO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get out of here, you HOBO!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488652</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1261157640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Offspec is good if the player is skilled.  For example, a healadin as main spec and a generic DPS for off.</p><p>However, in EQ2 and WoW, if you have an offspec, you should have an equipment change to back it up.  If, for example, I went out as a DPS role with all my equipment sporting +INT and +heal stats on a WoW paladin, I'd be asked to swap specs, or leave.  Similar if an Everquest 2 guardian or WoW warrior was wanting to tank a raid encounter with his high DPS 3h weapon as opposed to a decent sword/shield combination.</p><p>The biggest problem I see with offspec stuff is that players tend to not know their alternate spec well.  This happens often with people whose primary spec is DPS, and the secondary spec is healing or tanking.  They know their DPS spec well and the exact rotation to use to keep their numbers high, but if they are asked to step up to the plate and be a meat shield, their timing is poor, and knowing what to throw when you need to throw it is everything.  For example, if you know a boss is going to pop off a nasty attack on the tank very shortly (decimate on Gluth is a good example), you have your long casting, high hit point heal being cast so it lands just after the damage is done.  Not having this timing in place can turn a normally successful raid into a record stock dividend for the NPC armor repairer's guild.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Offspec is good if the player is skilled .
For example , a healadin as main spec and a generic DPS for off.However , in EQ2 and WoW , if you have an offspec , you should have an equipment change to back it up .
If , for example , I went out as a DPS role with all my equipment sporting + INT and + heal stats on a WoW paladin , I 'd be asked to swap specs , or leave .
Similar if an Everquest 2 guardian or WoW warrior was wanting to tank a raid encounter with his high DPS 3h weapon as opposed to a decent sword/shield combination.The biggest problem I see with offspec stuff is that players tend to not know their alternate spec well .
This happens often with people whose primary spec is DPS , and the secondary spec is healing or tanking .
They know their DPS spec well and the exact rotation to use to keep their numbers high , but if they are asked to step up to the plate and be a meat shield , their timing is poor , and knowing what to throw when you need to throw it is everything .
For example , if you know a boss is going to pop off a nasty attack on the tank very shortly ( decimate on Gluth is a good example ) , you have your long casting , high hit point heal being cast so it lands just after the damage is done .
Not having this timing in place can turn a normally successful raid into a record stock dividend for the NPC armor repairer 's guild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offspec is good if the player is skilled.
For example, a healadin as main spec and a generic DPS for off.However, in EQ2 and WoW, if you have an offspec, you should have an equipment change to back it up.
If, for example, I went out as a DPS role with all my equipment sporting +INT and +heal stats on a WoW paladin, I'd be asked to swap specs, or leave.
Similar if an Everquest 2 guardian or WoW warrior was wanting to tank a raid encounter with his high DPS 3h weapon as opposed to a decent sword/shield combination.The biggest problem I see with offspec stuff is that players tend to not know their alternate spec well.
This happens often with people whose primary spec is DPS, and the secondary spec is healing or tanking.
They know their DPS spec well and the exact rotation to use to keep their numbers high, but if they are asked to step up to the plate and be a meat shield, their timing is poor, and knowing what to throw when you need to throw it is everything.
For example, if you know a boss is going to pop off a nasty attack on the tank very shortly (decimate on Gluth is a good example), you have your long casting, high hit point heal being cast so it lands just after the damage is done.
Not having this timing in place can turn a normally successful raid into a record stock dividend for the NPC armor repairer's guild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486964</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>Alphanos</author>
	<datestamp>1261150620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're looking for Runescape.  It's designed so that you can fight using melee, magic, or ranged/archery depending on your preference of the day, and you can eventually master all three.  Similar with non-combat skills.  In fact a few upper-level monsters and bosses are designed such that to defeat them you must switch combat styles mid-fight by swapping out your equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're looking for Runescape .
It 's designed so that you can fight using melee , magic , or ranged/archery depending on your preference of the day , and you can eventually master all three .
Similar with non-combat skills .
In fact a few upper-level monsters and bosses are designed such that to defeat them you must switch combat styles mid-fight by swapping out your equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're looking for Runescape.
It's designed so that you can fight using melee, magic, or ranged/archery depending on your preference of the day, and you can eventually master all three.
Similar with non-combat skills.
In fact a few upper-level monsters and bosses are designed such that to defeat them you must switch combat styles mid-fight by swapping out your equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489604</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I've got another one...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1261161240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had paper?</p><p>And the rocks we only had 'cause we snuck in the construction site next door!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had paper ? And the rocks we only had 'cause we snuck in the construction site next door !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had paper?And the rocks we only had 'cause we snuck in the construction site next door!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493848</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy (try Eve Online)</title>
	<author>Invisible Agent</author>
	<datestamp>1261134000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eve Online has this trait - you are partly your "character", and partly the ship you happen to be flying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eve Online has this trait - you are partly your " character " , and partly the ship you happen to be flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eve Online has this trait - you are partly your "character", and partly the ship you happen to be flying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491150</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>BlueBadger</author>
	<datestamp>1261166340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to me, it sounds like you haven't played Dungeons and Dragons Online. It's my favorite game because it's an MMO, but it does a lot of things differently. A lot is the same and/or could be improved but it gets a lot of things right, that no other game that I've ever played, seen or heard of does.

The optimal solution/party make up is always going to have a CC, a healer, and lots of dps and often a tank. A lot of people in game will always want to optimize the group that way. However, it really has the flexibility and complexity of the rules that are used so well that I find it has infinite little differences and really makes every time you repeat a quest unique. It's an MMO, but strangely many MMOs are way too solo friendly, and while DDO has gone a lot more solo friendly lately it is still a very strongly group based game. That said, most of the time groups made up of any race/class combos will be able to get past the encounters and quests as long as the players plan ahead, work together and are pretty decent. The stealth mechanism is pretty good, as is most of the mechanics.

I strongly suggest you or anyone else who likes RPGs/MMOs to try it out.
It is one of the most innovative games I've ever played.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>to me , it sounds like you have n't played Dungeons and Dragons Online .
It 's my favorite game because it 's an MMO , but it does a lot of things differently .
A lot is the same and/or could be improved but it gets a lot of things right , that no other game that I 've ever played , seen or heard of does .
The optimal solution/party make up is always going to have a CC , a healer , and lots of dps and often a tank .
A lot of people in game will always want to optimize the group that way .
However , it really has the flexibility and complexity of the rules that are used so well that I find it has infinite little differences and really makes every time you repeat a quest unique .
It 's an MMO , but strangely many MMOs are way too solo friendly , and while DDO has gone a lot more solo friendly lately it is still a very strongly group based game .
That said , most of the time groups made up of any race/class combos will be able to get past the encounters and quests as long as the players plan ahead , work together and are pretty decent .
The stealth mechanism is pretty good , as is most of the mechanics .
I strongly suggest you or anyone else who likes RPGs/MMOs to try it out .
It is one of the most innovative games I 've ever played .
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to me, it sounds like you haven't played Dungeons and Dragons Online.
It's my favorite game because it's an MMO, but it does a lot of things differently.
A lot is the same and/or could be improved but it gets a lot of things right, that no other game that I've ever played, seen or heard of does.
The optimal solution/party make up is always going to have a CC, a healer, and lots of dps and often a tank.
A lot of people in game will always want to optimize the group that way.
However, it really has the flexibility and complexity of the rules that are used so well that I find it has infinite little differences and really makes every time you repeat a quest unique.
It's an MMO, but strangely many MMOs are way too solo friendly, and while DDO has gone a lot more solo friendly lately it is still a very strongly group based game.
That said, most of the time groups made up of any race/class combos will be able to get past the encounters and quests as long as the players plan ahead, work together and are pretty decent.
The stealth mechanism is pretty good, as is most of the mechanics.
I strongly suggest you or anyone else who likes RPGs/MMOs to try it out.
It is one of the most innovative games I've ever played.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490110</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Hillgiant</author>
	<datestamp>1261162800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PBAOE Nuke.</p><p>Though I guess in that case you are splitting tasks a little different.  Either bubbling the nuker or splitting healer in the mana and health regeneration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PBAOE Nuke.Though I guess in that case you are splitting tasks a little different .
Either bubbling the nuker or splitting healer in the mana and health regeneration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PBAOE Nuke.Though I guess in that case you are splitting tasks a little different.
Either bubbling the nuker or splitting healer in the mana and health regeneration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487804</id>
	<title>Mod article -1 redundant</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1261154280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. It's not news, it's not stuff that mattes, and nothing the guy is writing is in any way original. Multiplayer RPGs that pit players vs. tough NPC characters will always eventually have players min/maxing into the 3 basic roles. Well, that is if the game is any good. Otherwise (as someone else posted) it's just a chaotic free-for-all. A perfect example is WoW. The game has not one but (count 'em) THREE hybrid classes, that are (theoretically) able to do not one, but all three of the basic jobs (yes yes, I know shaman can't really tank, but they can do so well enough with a shield to get through most low-level dungeons). And as the talent trees sat to begin with, they were all able to do just that reasonably well in much of the content. But then you hit the hard stuff (ie. epic dungeons) and that hybrid spec that let you do so well solo just didn't cut it any more. If you played one of those three classes, you didn't even get a spot if you weren't spec'd just right. Now, these classes are if anything even less capable of switching from one basic role to another without redoing the talents. And you're pretty much never going to switch from one to the other in the middle of combat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
It 's not news , it 's not stuff that mattes , and nothing the guy is writing is in any way original .
Multiplayer RPGs that pit players vs. tough NPC characters will always eventually have players min/maxing into the 3 basic roles .
Well , that is if the game is any good .
Otherwise ( as someone else posted ) it 's just a chaotic free-for-all .
A perfect example is WoW .
The game has not one but ( count 'em ) THREE hybrid classes , that are ( theoretically ) able to do not one , but all three of the basic jobs ( yes yes , I know shaman ca n't really tank , but they can do so well enough with a shield to get through most low-level dungeons ) .
And as the talent trees sat to begin with , they were all able to do just that reasonably well in much of the content .
But then you hit the hard stuff ( ie .
epic dungeons ) and that hybrid spec that let you do so well solo just did n't cut it any more .
If you played one of those three classes , you did n't even get a spot if you were n't spec 'd just right .
Now , these classes are if anything even less capable of switching from one basic role to another without redoing the talents .
And you 're pretty much never going to switch from one to the other in the middle of combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
It's not news, it's not stuff that mattes, and nothing the guy is writing is in any way original.
Multiplayer RPGs that pit players vs. tough NPC characters will always eventually have players min/maxing into the 3 basic roles.
Well, that is if the game is any good.
Otherwise (as someone else posted) it's just a chaotic free-for-all.
A perfect example is WoW.
The game has not one but (count 'em) THREE hybrid classes, that are (theoretically) able to do not one, but all three of the basic jobs (yes yes, I know shaman can't really tank, but they can do so well enough with a shield to get through most low-level dungeons).
And as the talent trees sat to begin with, they were all able to do just that reasonably well in much of the content.
But then you hit the hard stuff (ie.
epic dungeons) and that hybrid spec that let you do so well solo just didn't cut it any more.
If you played one of those three classes, you didn't even get a spot if you weren't spec'd just right.
Now, these classes are if anything even less capable of switching from one basic role to another without redoing the talents.
And you're pretty much never going to switch from one to the other in the middle of combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490056</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>ed</author>
	<datestamp>1261162620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's re-enactment experience but still</p><p>Two weapons is mainly used with one for parrying or in combination trapping your opponent's weapon. By havinng te parrying device in your off hand being a weapon then you have an extra threat, not as a damage multiplier</p><p>But I'd rather have a shield</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's re-enactment experience but stillTwo weapons is mainly used with one for parrying or in combination trapping your opponent 's weapon .
By havinng te parrying device in your off hand being a weapon then you have an extra threat , not as a damage multiplierBut I 'd rather have a shield</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's re-enactment experience but stillTwo weapons is mainly used with one for parrying or in combination trapping your opponent's weapon.
By havinng te parrying device in your off hand being a weapon then you have an extra threat, not as a damage multiplierBut I'd rather have a shield</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493932</id>
	<title>Re:So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1261134480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Survival time is irrelevant. The healer still has to kill the enemy before the enemy kills him. Healing usually costs some resource (often 'mana') and running out of that resource makes the healer mostly useless. Mana is nothing more than a virtual health pool, and while a high HPS means you'll be able to use that health pool completely, it's still going to be empty at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Survival time is irrelevant .
The healer still has to kill the enemy before the enemy kills him .
Healing usually costs some resource ( often 'mana ' ) and running out of that resource makes the healer mostly useless .
Mana is nothing more than a virtual health pool , and while a high HPS means you 'll be able to use that health pool completely , it 's still going to be empty at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Survival time is irrelevant.
The healer still has to kill the enemy before the enemy kills him.
Healing usually costs some resource (often 'mana') and running out of that resource makes the healer mostly useless.
Mana is nothing more than a virtual health pool, and while a high HPS means you'll be able to use that health pool completely, it's still going to be empty at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486416</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this any different from having different classes?  Even now in WoW there are classes which can do all 3 jobs (tank,dps,heal). You change your spec from prot to retro, get yourself som crit + ap gear and you can switch your paly from tanking to dps any time you like.  Even though some classes can be "jack of all trades" they should not be able to do it equally well ALL the time. It called balancing. If you allow every plaer to wear plate, do huge amount of damage and heall then you will endup with bunch of bored OP plladins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different from having different classes ?
Even now in WoW there are classes which can do all 3 jobs ( tank,dps,heal ) .
You change your spec from prot to retro , get yourself som crit + ap gear and you can switch your paly from tanking to dps any time you like .
Even though some classes can be " jack of all trades " they should not be able to do it equally well ALL the time .
It called balancing .
If you allow every plaer to wear plate , do huge amount of damage and heall then you will endup with bunch of bored OP plladins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different from having different classes?
Even now in WoW there are classes which can do all 3 jobs (tank,dps,heal).
You change your spec from prot to retro, get yourself som crit + ap gear and you can switch your paly from tanking to dps any time you like.
Even though some classes can be "jack of all trades" they should not be able to do it equally well ALL the time.
It called balancing.
If you allow every plaer to wear plate, do huge amount of damage and heall then you will endup with bunch of bored OP plladins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485990</id>
	<title>heroic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main concepts in Fantasy is....Fantasy!  That you can be the super-tough warrior, or mysteriously powerful magician, or quick-killing assassin. Do away with the specialization and you do away with some of the core reasons why people play. I understand wanting to mix things up a bit, but if you aren't special....you aren't special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main concepts in Fantasy is....Fantasy !
That you can be the super-tough warrior , or mysteriously powerful magician , or quick-killing assassin .
Do away with the specialization and you do away with some of the core reasons why people play .
I understand wanting to mix things up a bit , but if you are n't special....you are n't special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main concepts in Fantasy is....Fantasy!
That you can be the super-tough warrior, or mysteriously powerful magician, or quick-killing assassin.
Do away with the specialization and you do away with some of the core reasons why people play.
I understand wanting to mix things up a bit, but if you aren't special....you aren't special.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486936</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>cgomezr</author>
	<datestamp>1261150440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try <a href="http://roguelikefiction.com/" title="roguelikefiction.com" rel="nofollow">Legerdemain</a> [roguelikefiction.com], it does very much what you have described, having a very limited inventory system that forces you to take only what you need for each trip. It's single-player, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Legerdemain [ roguelikefiction.com ] , it does very much what you have described , having a very limited inventory system that forces you to take only what you need for each trip .
It 's single-player , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Legerdemain [roguelikefiction.com], it does very much what you have described, having a very limited inventory system that forces you to take only what you need for each trip.
It's single-player, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</id>
	<title>Batman analogy</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261144860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.</p><p>Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.</p></div><p>I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class. I'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.</p><p>So, the Batman analogy. Sure, he's got his standard suit he runs around in. Lightweight for acrobatics, bulletproofing on the chest and weights in the cape so he can hit people but his main defense is not taking hits. But if he needs to tank up, he has heavier suits. His anti-superman suit was basically space marine power armor. He has bat spacesuits, bat diving suits, whatever. The point is, all he needs to do to change roles is change equipment. the trick is knowing what to bring.</p><p>Strangely enough, Armored Core got this idea right. You can build different mechs specialized for different roles. Some missions you need heavy firepower for crushing hard targets with bolts of energy with low fire rates, sometimes you need autocannons that spam out shells all over the place to hit fast-moving light targets. You equip to suit the mission.</p><p>I'd like to see an rpg take that line of reasoning. You need to do sneaking, you carry your light weapons and black tights. Scouting the woods? Longbow, shortsword, cloak. Have to wade into a big melee? Now you bring out the heavy armor.</p><p>But what ends up happening in the online games, and I'm sure the publishers don't mind, people will run several accounts specialized in different roles just to make progress. In EVE people will have industrial characters, pvp characters, miners, etc. And the best part is that if you find you have less time to play, you can't consolidate those characters. Bah. It's a cycle best to avoid by not playing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg 's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class .
I 'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.So , the Batman analogy .
Sure , he 's got his standard suit he runs around in .
Lightweight for acrobatics , bulletproofing on the chest and weights in the cape so he can hit people but his main defense is not taking hits .
But if he needs to tank up , he has heavier suits .
His anti-superman suit was basically space marine power armor .
He has bat spacesuits , bat diving suits , whatever .
The point is , all he needs to do to change roles is change equipment .
the trick is knowing what to bring.Strangely enough , Armored Core got this idea right .
You can build different mechs specialized for different roles .
Some missions you need heavy firepower for crushing hard targets with bolts of energy with low fire rates , sometimes you need autocannons that spam out shells all over the place to hit fast-moving light targets .
You equip to suit the mission.I 'd like to see an rpg take that line of reasoning .
You need to do sneaking , you carry your light weapons and black tights .
Scouting the woods ?
Longbow , shortsword , cloak .
Have to wade into a big melee ?
Now you bring out the heavy armor.But what ends up happening in the online games , and I 'm sure the publishers do n't mind , people will run several accounts specialized in different roles just to make progress .
In EVE people will have industrial characters , pvp characters , miners , etc .
And the best part is that if you find you have less time to play , you ca n't consolidate those characters .
Bah. It 's a cycle best to avoid by not playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class.
I'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.So, the Batman analogy.
Sure, he's got his standard suit he runs around in.
Lightweight for acrobatics, bulletproofing on the chest and weights in the cape so he can hit people but his main defense is not taking hits.
But if he needs to tank up, he has heavier suits.
His anti-superman suit was basically space marine power armor.
He has bat spacesuits, bat diving suits, whatever.
The point is, all he needs to do to change roles is change equipment.
the trick is knowing what to bring.Strangely enough, Armored Core got this idea right.
You can build different mechs specialized for different roles.
Some missions you need heavy firepower for crushing hard targets with bolts of energy with low fire rates, sometimes you need autocannons that spam out shells all over the place to hit fast-moving light targets.
You equip to suit the mission.I'd like to see an rpg take that line of reasoning.
You need to do sneaking, you carry your light weapons and black tights.
Scouting the woods?
Longbow, shortsword, cloak.
Have to wade into a big melee?
Now you bring out the heavy armor.But what ends up happening in the online games, and I'm sure the publishers don't mind, people will run several accounts specialized in different roles just to make progress.
In EVE people will have industrial characters, pvp characters, miners, etc.
And the best part is that if you find you have less time to play, you can't consolidate those characters.
Bah. It's a cycle best to avoid by not playing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500512</id>
	<title>Seriously? "Yogg-Saron?"</title>
	<author>Shihar</author>
	<datestamp>1261216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like Blizzard when it comes to game design, but when it comes to even the pretense of originally they fail on such an epic level  you need to have your eyes closed and your head shoved a meter up your own asshole to miss it.  The blatant ripping off of Warhammer for both Starcraft and Warcraft was pretty obvious and clear... but seriously, "Yogg-Saron"?  Is the expansion going to have "Cthulhu-Voldemort"?  Eh, I guess they pay homage to the ideas they raid, pillage, and then watered down and Disney-fy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Blizzard when it comes to game design , but when it comes to even the pretense of originally they fail on such an epic level you need to have your eyes closed and your head shoved a meter up your own asshole to miss it .
The blatant ripping off of Warhammer for both Starcraft and Warcraft was pretty obvious and clear... but seriously , " Yogg-Saron " ?
Is the expansion going to have " Cthulhu-Voldemort " ?
Eh , I guess they pay homage to the ideas they raid , pillage , and then watered down and Disney-fy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Blizzard when it comes to game design, but when it comes to even the pretense of originally they fail on such an epic level  you need to have your eyes closed and your head shoved a meter up your own asshole to miss it.
The blatant ripping off of Warhammer for both Starcraft and Warcraft was pretty obvious and clear... but seriously, "Yogg-Saron"?
Is the expansion going to have "Cthulhu-Voldemort"?
Eh, I guess they pay homage to the ideas they raid, pillage, and then watered down and Disney-fy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488570</id>
	<title>It's not the class, it's the build</title>
	<author>mmmmbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1261157340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are actually four roles in any rpg group:  tank, artillery, heal-o-matic, and skill monkey.  This is true regardless of the game's mechanics - it's the nature of any realistic combat system.  Of course, there are some variations.  In most online games, you can heal completely just by sitting for a bit, so you might not need a healer.  Some games do away with the skill monkey role just by leaving out the various and sundry abilities that they would have, or by letting everyone do everything.  But in a more realistic game, you end up with those four roles.  Why?  Well, let's take a look at the real world; specifically, the US military.  Are all soldiers in the army the same?  Does the military just have one branch?  Of course not.  So, let's look at the roles:</p><p>Tank: This should be obvious.  The army has tanks.  But wait, is that all?  What about the infantry?  The infantry also "tanks."  They form the front lines, and protect the rest of the "group" from attack.  They do this not by having huge amounts of armor, but by facing off against the enemy in slow, grinding combat.  Given two infantries facing off, you end up with a war of attrition.  Ever seen two tanks fight in a game?  At sea, this role is played by ships who can keep an enemy at bay by being too threatening for the enemy to risk counter-attack, resulting in a standoff.  Likewise, in games, there are other ways a character can "tank" without playing a class designed for it, as long as the character is built the right way.</p><p>Artillery: Again, there's an obvious analogue.  But the military also has air strikes, and bombs, and frickin' flame throwers!  Ok, I got a little excited there.  But the point is, there are lots of ways to dps, either targeted or aoe.  Again, it's just a matter of the build.</p><p>Heal-o-matic: Fine, so nobody in the real world can magically bind your wounds.  Nevertheless, every company of marines will have a medic.  The army has field hospitals.  And do I really need to talk about Search and Rescue?</p><p>Skill Monkey: Special Forces for a start.  Then there's the minesweepers, the diplomats (diplomacy's a skill), the cooks (people gotta eat in real life), and many others.  Like in games, many of these skills are performed by people who are also trained for combat.</p><p>So I guess what I'm getting at here is that the article has it wrong.  You don't have roles in games because the classes are designed that way.  You have classes in games because the roles are needed.  And sometimes those classes fill roles different than you might expect (eg. "Batman mage" is a skill monkey.)  Even in games where the class system has been removed, you will still have common builds, and the players will still name them and treat them like classes.  So why not design the game with that in mind, and simplify it for everyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are actually four roles in any rpg group : tank , artillery , heal-o-matic , and skill monkey .
This is true regardless of the game 's mechanics - it 's the nature of any realistic combat system .
Of course , there are some variations .
In most online games , you can heal completely just by sitting for a bit , so you might not need a healer .
Some games do away with the skill monkey role just by leaving out the various and sundry abilities that they would have , or by letting everyone do everything .
But in a more realistic game , you end up with those four roles .
Why ? Well , let 's take a look at the real world ; specifically , the US military .
Are all soldiers in the army the same ?
Does the military just have one branch ?
Of course not .
So , let 's look at the roles : Tank : This should be obvious .
The army has tanks .
But wait , is that all ?
What about the infantry ?
The infantry also " tanks .
" They form the front lines , and protect the rest of the " group " from attack .
They do this not by having huge amounts of armor , but by facing off against the enemy in slow , grinding combat .
Given two infantries facing off , you end up with a war of attrition .
Ever seen two tanks fight in a game ?
At sea , this role is played by ships who can keep an enemy at bay by being too threatening for the enemy to risk counter-attack , resulting in a standoff .
Likewise , in games , there are other ways a character can " tank " without playing a class designed for it , as long as the character is built the right way.Artillery : Again , there 's an obvious analogue .
But the military also has air strikes , and bombs , and frickin ' flame throwers !
Ok , I got a little excited there .
But the point is , there are lots of ways to dps , either targeted or aoe .
Again , it 's just a matter of the build.Heal-o-matic : Fine , so nobody in the real world can magically bind your wounds .
Nevertheless , every company of marines will have a medic .
The army has field hospitals .
And do I really need to talk about Search and Rescue ? Skill Monkey : Special Forces for a start .
Then there 's the minesweepers , the diplomats ( diplomacy 's a skill ) , the cooks ( people got ta eat in real life ) , and many others .
Like in games , many of these skills are performed by people who are also trained for combat.So I guess what I 'm getting at here is that the article has it wrong .
You do n't have roles in games because the classes are designed that way .
You have classes in games because the roles are needed .
And sometimes those classes fill roles different than you might expect ( eg .
" Batman mage " is a skill monkey .
) Even in games where the class system has been removed , you will still have common builds , and the players will still name them and treat them like classes .
So why not design the game with that in mind , and simplify it for everyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are actually four roles in any rpg group:  tank, artillery, heal-o-matic, and skill monkey.
This is true regardless of the game's mechanics - it's the nature of any realistic combat system.
Of course, there are some variations.
In most online games, you can heal completely just by sitting for a bit, so you might not need a healer.
Some games do away with the skill monkey role just by leaving out the various and sundry abilities that they would have, or by letting everyone do everything.
But in a more realistic game, you end up with those four roles.
Why?  Well, let's take a look at the real world; specifically, the US military.
Are all soldiers in the army the same?
Does the military just have one branch?
Of course not.
So, let's look at the roles:Tank: This should be obvious.
The army has tanks.
But wait, is that all?
What about the infantry?
The infantry also "tanks.
"  They form the front lines, and protect the rest of the "group" from attack.
They do this not by having huge amounts of armor, but by facing off against the enemy in slow, grinding combat.
Given two infantries facing off, you end up with a war of attrition.
Ever seen two tanks fight in a game?
At sea, this role is played by ships who can keep an enemy at bay by being too threatening for the enemy to risk counter-attack, resulting in a standoff.
Likewise, in games, there are other ways a character can "tank" without playing a class designed for it, as long as the character is built the right way.Artillery: Again, there's an obvious analogue.
But the military also has air strikes, and bombs, and frickin' flame throwers!
Ok, I got a little excited there.
But the point is, there are lots of ways to dps, either targeted or aoe.
Again, it's just a matter of the build.Heal-o-matic: Fine, so nobody in the real world can magically bind your wounds.
Nevertheless, every company of marines will have a medic.
The army has field hospitals.
And do I really need to talk about Search and Rescue?Skill Monkey: Special Forces for a start.
Then there's the minesweepers, the diplomats (diplomacy's a skill), the cooks (people gotta eat in real life), and many others.
Like in games, many of these skills are performed by people who are also trained for combat.So I guess what I'm getting at here is that the article has it wrong.
You don't have roles in games because the classes are designed that way.
You have classes in games because the roles are needed.
And sometimes those classes fill roles different than you might expect (eg.
"Batman mage" is a skill monkey.
)  Even in games where the class system has been removed, you will still have common builds, and the players will still name them and treat them like classes.
So why not design the game with that in mind, and simplify it for everyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486992</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>Clover\_Kicker</author>
	<datestamp>1261150800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Guild Wars like that, you can learn lots of skills but can only have a few in your toolbar at any one time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Guild Wars like that , you can learn lots of skills but can only have a few in your toolbar at any one time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Guild Wars like that, you can learn lots of skills but can only have a few in your toolbar at any one time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485930</id>
	<title>Re:So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261145400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate healing for a simple reason: it screws up item scaling balance horribly. Take a healer with 10k health and 800 HPS against a damage dealer with 1000 DPS. The healer survives 50 seconds. Now make the healer 12\% more powerful. Bam, there's a 100\% increase to survival time. If you let healers be more powerful than damage dealers (and you have to do this if you're going for a pure class/role system), killing a healer is reliant on preventing him from casting for some time, something which does not make for fun gameplay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate healing for a simple reason : it screws up item scaling balance horribly .
Take a healer with 10k health and 800 HPS against a damage dealer with 1000 DPS .
The healer survives 50 seconds .
Now make the healer 12 \ % more powerful .
Bam , there 's a 100 \ % increase to survival time .
If you let healers be more powerful than damage dealers ( and you have to do this if you 're going for a pure class/role system ) , killing a healer is reliant on preventing him from casting for some time , something which does not make for fun gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate healing for a simple reason: it screws up item scaling balance horribly.
Take a healer with 10k health and 800 HPS against a damage dealer with 1000 DPS.
The healer survives 50 seconds.
Now make the healer 12\% more powerful.
Bam, there's a 100\% increase to survival time.
If you let healers be more powerful than damage dealers (and you have to do this if you're going for a pure class/role system), killing a healer is reliant on preventing him from casting for some time, something which does not make for fun gameplay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489642</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I've got another one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had paper?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had paper ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had paper?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489848</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1261162020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other issue is population imbalances.  If you know you are playing a MMO where most people play rocks in PvP, you are not going to bother playing scissors, and either are going to play paper or a better equipped rock.  This is why you see certain classes in MMOs heavily populated while others rarely represented -- if you can't beat them, join them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other issue is population imbalances .
If you know you are playing a MMO where most people play rocks in PvP , you are not going to bother playing scissors , and either are going to play paper or a better equipped rock .
This is why you see certain classes in MMOs heavily populated while others rarely represented -- if you ca n't beat them , join them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other issue is population imbalances.
If you know you are playing a MMO where most people play rocks in PvP, you are not going to bother playing scissors, and either are going to play paper or a better equipped rock.
This is why you see certain classes in MMOs heavily populated while others rarely represented -- if you can't beat them, join them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493804</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261133820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How things really worked is never a reason to drive game design.</p><p>In reality there were no dwarves, elves, magic, or dragons.  So we must remove them.  Where's your fantasy game design now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How things really worked is never a reason to drive game design.In reality there were no dwarves , elves , magic , or dragons .
So we must remove them .
Where 's your fantasy game design now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How things really worked is never a reason to drive game design.In reality there were no dwarves, elves, magic, or dragons.
So we must remove them.
Where's your fantasy game design now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</id>
	<title>Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261144080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock.<br>Scissors.<br>Paper.</p><p>Call them by any other name, but thats how you get an ideal game balance.</p><p>Fighter, Mage, Archer<br>Human, Dwarf, Elf<br>Fire, Water, Air</p><p>There's a reason why this simple game is still around after possibly a few hundred years. And everyone knows some variant of it, (acid, well, hammer, chainsaw..... you name it) and also knows that they suck. messing up the balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock.Scissors.Paper.Call them by any other name , but thats how you get an ideal game balance.Fighter , Mage , ArcherHuman , Dwarf , ElfFire , Water , AirThere 's a reason why this simple game is still around after possibly a few hundred years .
And everyone knows some variant of it , ( acid , well , hammer , chainsaw..... you name it ) and also knows that they suck .
messing up the balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock.Scissors.Paper.Call them by any other name, but thats how you get an ideal game balance.Fighter, Mage, ArcherHuman, Dwarf, ElfFire, Water, AirThere's a reason why this simple game is still around after possibly a few hundred years.
And everyone knows some variant of it, (acid, well, hammer, chainsaw..... you name it) and also knows that they suck.
messing up the balance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487132</id>
	<title>Nethack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261151520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use Nethack as the example.</p><p>Anyone can use heavy armor, it just reduces Magic casting abilities (Time, success rates, etc.)<br>Anyone can use any weapon, just some classes aren't proficient at it (A wizard with a warhammer missing constantly)<br>Anyone can learn a spell, but your warrior can take 5 minutes to cast that spell vs. the 2 seconds for a wizard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use Nethack as the example.Anyone can use heavy armor , it just reduces Magic casting abilities ( Time , success rates , etc .
) Anyone can use any weapon , just some classes are n't proficient at it ( A wizard with a warhammer missing constantly ) Anyone can learn a spell , but your warrior can take 5 minutes to cast that spell vs. the 2 seconds for a wizard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use Nethack as the example.Anyone can use heavy armor, it just reduces Magic casting abilities (Time, success rates, etc.
)Anyone can use any weapon, just some classes aren't proficient at it (A wizard with a warhammer missing constantly)Anyone can learn a spell, but your warrior can take 5 minutes to cast that spell vs. the 2 seconds for a wizard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</id>
	<title>Two words:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261143960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.wowwiki.com/Off\_spec" title="wowwiki.com">Offspec</a> [wowwiki.com] (Apologies for the rubbish link quality, but it gets the point across).<br> <br>You can't make classes "jack of all trades." It doesn't work. Someone misses their cue to fire off a spell because they're in the middle of doing something else, and it's all gone to pot. This fictional game from Gamasutra would be great if many MMO gamers (that I've encountered) could keep track of more than one thing at a time. However, having seen healers run backwards into a new mob, tanks which run around between enemies trying to take aggro from other characters who don't need it, and damage dealers who have no concept of aggro mitigation, I'm susprised a lot of MMO players can cross the road without assistance.<br> <br>Paraphrasing someone's very famous words: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offspec [ wowwiki.com ] ( Apologies for the rubbish link quality , but it gets the point across ) .
You ca n't make classes " jack of all trades .
" It does n't work .
Someone misses their cue to fire off a spell because they 're in the middle of doing something else , and it 's all gone to pot .
This fictional game from Gamasutra would be great if many MMO gamers ( that I 've encountered ) could keep track of more than one thing at a time .
However , having seen healers run backwards into a new mob , tanks which run around between enemies trying to take aggro from other characters who do n't need it , and damage dealers who have no concept of aggro mitigation , I 'm susprised a lot of MMO players can cross the road without assistance .
Paraphrasing someone 's very famous words : " If it ai n't bust , do n't fix it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offspec [wowwiki.com] (Apologies for the rubbish link quality, but it gets the point across).
You can't make classes "jack of all trades.
" It doesn't work.
Someone misses their cue to fire off a spell because they're in the middle of doing something else, and it's all gone to pot.
This fictional game from Gamasutra would be great if many MMO gamers (that I've encountered) could keep track of more than one thing at a time.
However, having seen healers run backwards into a new mob, tanks which run around between enemies trying to take aggro from other characters who don't need it, and damage dealers who have no concept of aggro mitigation, I'm susprised a lot of MMO players can cross the road without assistance.
Paraphrasing someone's very famous words: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</id>
	<title>Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1261143660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't any mmorpg out there capable of offering a stats-based or skill-based character with no classification system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't any mmorpg out there capable of offering a stats-based or skill-based character with no classification system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't any mmorpg out there capable of offering a stats-based or skill-based character with no classification system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486458</id>
	<title>Re:The Trinity</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1261148100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we're being honest, all O"RP"Gs are Death By Spreadsheet, and Epic weapons would deal +5 to SQL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're being honest , all O " RP " Gs are Death By Spreadsheet , and Epic weapons would deal + 5 to SQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're being honest, all O"RP"Gs are Death By Spreadsheet, and Epic weapons would deal +5 to SQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486784</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>whitehatnetizen</author>
	<datestamp>1261149720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eve online - you can fly any type of ship you want, you can put different modules on certain types of ships to make them go from tank to heavy dps or compromise between the two - or even repair other ships.

then there are specialised utility ships, extremely good at one particular thing if need be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eve online - you can fly any type of ship you want , you can put different modules on certain types of ships to make them go from tank to heavy dps or compromise between the two - or even repair other ships .
then there are specialised utility ships , extremely good at one particular thing if need be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eve online - you can fly any type of ship you want, you can put different modules on certain types of ships to make them go from tank to heavy dps or compromise between the two - or even repair other ships.
then there are specialised utility ships, extremely good at one particular thing if need be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485654</id>
	<title>Apple vs Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really boils down to whether you want to give your customers few options and watch them work within the boundaries to create great experiences or whether you want to provide a multitude of options and basically pigeonhole your customers.</p><p>The best situation, of course, is to take the middle road. Give the customer a few options and let them show you what they can do. This is why Windows is such a popular OS. It gives plenty of configurable features without overwhelming the user with too many options.</p><p>This works in any software genre. Not just games and operating systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really boils down to whether you want to give your customers few options and watch them work within the boundaries to create great experiences or whether you want to provide a multitude of options and basically pigeonhole your customers.The best situation , of course , is to take the middle road .
Give the customer a few options and let them show you what they can do .
This is why Windows is such a popular OS .
It gives plenty of configurable features without overwhelming the user with too many options.This works in any software genre .
Not just games and operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really boils down to whether you want to give your customers few options and watch them work within the boundaries to create great experiences or whether you want to provide a multitude of options and basically pigeonhole your customers.The best situation, of course, is to take the middle road.
Give the customer a few options and let them show you what they can do.
This is why Windows is such a popular OS.
It gives plenty of configurable features without overwhelming the user with too many options.This works in any software genre.
Not just games and operating systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489354</id>
	<title>Re:So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1261160400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was one thing that I liked about Dark Age of Camelot back in the day. The stealth classes, which most people either love or hate, provided some balance in this area by being able to backstab with poisons for massive damage. In PvP this basically meant that if the stealther was equal level to the healer he could kill the healer in seconds with that first surprise attack. Of course, the stealther was then visible to everyone and vulnerable to counter-attack and depending upon what other players where in the area the healers may or may not have been the most important targets to take out first. They basically decided not to do stealth classes in WoW and IMHO that removes an important balancing element from the game; especially in PvP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was one thing that I liked about Dark Age of Camelot back in the day .
The stealth classes , which most people either love or hate , provided some balance in this area by being able to backstab with poisons for massive damage .
In PvP this basically meant that if the stealther was equal level to the healer he could kill the healer in seconds with that first surprise attack .
Of course , the stealther was then visible to everyone and vulnerable to counter-attack and depending upon what other players where in the area the healers may or may not have been the most important targets to take out first .
They basically decided not to do stealth classes in WoW and IMHO that removes an important balancing element from the game ; especially in PvP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was one thing that I liked about Dark Age of Camelot back in the day.
The stealth classes, which most people either love or hate, provided some balance in this area by being able to backstab with poisons for massive damage.
In PvP this basically meant that if the stealther was equal level to the healer he could kill the healer in seconds with that first surprise attack.
Of course, the stealther was then visible to everyone and vulnerable to counter-attack and depending upon what other players where in the area the healers may or may not have been the most important targets to take out first.
They basically decided not to do stealth classes in WoW and IMHO that removes an important balancing element from the game; especially in PvP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489378</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1261160520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. Can't work. If WoW proved anything, people want easy mode in MMOs these days.</p><p>Sorry to be blunt and direct, but that's basically its appeal: It's easy. Anyone unwrapping replies like "it's not, look at boss fight X where A has to do B<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", yes. And guess what, other MMOs did that before, and it was not even a boss fight.</p><p>Mages having the sheep minions because they respawn so killing them is pointless? Been there, done it. IIRC it was in DAoC, in some castle at level 40ish. Priests having to manadrain some mob because with mana he's an instant killer and without he's doable? Been there, done it, it was a staple of EaB. Range caster have to tank a stationary mob that does insane AOE damage? Been there, done it, was a requirement to get into some areas in EQ. Mobs that randomly clear their aggro list and require the tank to react FAST or the healer is a squishy puddle? Has there been ANY MMO besides WoW where this was NOT something you encountered pretty early on?</p><p>THIS is what makes boss fights difficult? That someone has to do something before/during the 'real' fight with some boss and/or step out of his routine spell rotation? That's not 'hard', people, that was standard in older MMOs.</p><p>But that's not wanted. What's wanted is easy mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Ca n't work .
If WoW proved anything , people want easy mode in MMOs these days.Sorry to be blunt and direct , but that 's basically its appeal : It 's easy .
Anyone unwrapping replies like " it 's not , look at boss fight X where A has to do B ... " , yes .
And guess what , other MMOs did that before , and it was not even a boss fight.Mages having the sheep minions because they respawn so killing them is pointless ?
Been there , done it .
IIRC it was in DAoC , in some castle at level 40ish .
Priests having to manadrain some mob because with mana he 's an instant killer and without he 's doable ?
Been there , done it , it was a staple of EaB .
Range caster have to tank a stationary mob that does insane AOE damage ?
Been there , done it , was a requirement to get into some areas in EQ .
Mobs that randomly clear their aggro list and require the tank to react FAST or the healer is a squishy puddle ?
Has there been ANY MMO besides WoW where this was NOT something you encountered pretty early on ? THIS is what makes boss fights difficult ?
That someone has to do something before/during the 'real ' fight with some boss and/or step out of his routine spell rotation ?
That 's not 'hard ' , people , that was standard in older MMOs.But that 's not wanted .
What 's wanted is easy mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Can't work.
If WoW proved anything, people want easy mode in MMOs these days.Sorry to be blunt and direct, but that's basically its appeal: It's easy.
Anyone unwrapping replies like "it's not, look at boss fight X where A has to do B ...", yes.
And guess what, other MMOs did that before, and it was not even a boss fight.Mages having the sheep minions because they respawn so killing them is pointless?
Been there, done it.
IIRC it was in DAoC, in some castle at level 40ish.
Priests having to manadrain some mob because with mana he's an instant killer and without he's doable?
Been there, done it, it was a staple of EaB.
Range caster have to tank a stationary mob that does insane AOE damage?
Been there, done it, was a requirement to get into some areas in EQ.
Mobs that randomly clear their aggro list and require the tank to react FAST or the healer is a squishy puddle?
Has there been ANY MMO besides WoW where this was NOT something you encountered pretty early on?THIS is what makes boss fights difficult?
That someone has to do something before/during the 'real' fight with some boss and/or step out of his routine spell rotation?
That's not 'hard', people, that was standard in older MMOs.But that's not wanted.
What's wanted is easy mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30512446</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1261413180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are just a hater.  You hate everything and anything because it makes you feel superior.  Quite frankly, the reason why a lot of games do this is because it works really really well.  All these ideas of "make it more realistic" are always awful.  Or "make it more like fantasy literature"...it sounds great, but then when you get down to it, no one want to play a hobbit who does no damage, has to eat a lot, and just runs away.<br> <br>It's popular to hate WoW...because it is popular.  But they really do a lot right.  The boss fights are interesting and unique and require coordination and strategy.  And they continually improve it.  I am always impressed with the new stuff they add...and if there is something that is annoying, they usually eventually come up with a way to address it.  I don't play any more, but I imagine most the people who complain haven't played it recently, if at all.<br> <br>Games only goal are to be fun.  For an MMO, that means it needs to be fun for everyone.  Just reading most people's idea of what would make a better game on here makes me shake my head.  The either have no idea what would make a fun game, or have no realistic idea of how hard it is to program games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are just a hater .
You hate everything and anything because it makes you feel superior .
Quite frankly , the reason why a lot of games do this is because it works really really well .
All these ideas of " make it more realistic " are always awful .
Or " make it more like fantasy literature " ...it sounds great , but then when you get down to it , no one want to play a hobbit who does no damage , has to eat a lot , and just runs away .
It 's popular to hate WoW...because it is popular .
But they really do a lot right .
The boss fights are interesting and unique and require coordination and strategy .
And they continually improve it .
I am always impressed with the new stuff they add...and if there is something that is annoying , they usually eventually come up with a way to address it .
I do n't play any more , but I imagine most the people who complain have n't played it recently , if at all .
Games only goal are to be fun .
For an MMO , that means it needs to be fun for everyone .
Just reading most people 's idea of what would make a better game on here makes me shake my head .
The either have no idea what would make a fun game , or have no realistic idea of how hard it is to program games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are just a hater.
You hate everything and anything because it makes you feel superior.
Quite frankly, the reason why a lot of games do this is because it works really really well.
All these ideas of "make it more realistic" are always awful.
Or "make it more like fantasy literature"...it sounds great, but then when you get down to it, no one want to play a hobbit who does no damage, has to eat a lot, and just runs away.
It's popular to hate WoW...because it is popular.
But they really do a lot right.
The boss fights are interesting and unique and require coordination and strategy.
And they continually improve it.
I am always impressed with the new stuff they add...and if there is something that is annoying, they usually eventually come up with a way to address it.
I don't play any more, but I imagine most the people who complain haven't played it recently, if at all.
Games only goal are to be fun.
For an MMO, that means it needs to be fun for everyone.
Just reading most people's idea of what would make a better game on here makes me shake my head.
The either have no idea what would make a fun game, or have no realistic idea of how hard it is to program games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488008</id>
	<title>Re:So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, I always thought it was to add or alter playing strategies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , I always thought it was to add or alter playing strategies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, I always thought it was to add or alter playing strategies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485820</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261144440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Runescape?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Runescape ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Runescape?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486836</id>
	<title>I like the City of Heroes solution.</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1261149900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the solution for this that City of Heroes uses.  Yes, they have the holy trinity of tank, damage dealer, and damage mitigator, but they have two variations on the theme that make combat dynamic and interesting.</p><p><b>Specialist Options</b>:  Some tanks dodge damage, others resist it, and yet others take the enemy's full attack and then quickly heal it back up.  Similarly, some damage mitigators heal, others use force fields to prevent damage from happening in the first place, and others debuff the enemy enough that their damage can be shrugged off.  All these options lend themselves to different situations, and the party tactics can change according to which options are present in the group.</p><p><b>Hybrids</b>:  All CoH archetypes are hybrids.  'Tanks' serve as tanks and crowd control.  Damage mitigators might also be damage dealers or crowd controllers.  Some damage dealers have abilities that make them serviceable tanks in a pinch (scrappers).  Allowing each character the ability to play two or more roles keeps the game fluid and the player engaged.  But no character can play all three roles of the trinity; that removes the incentive to group and creates a single-player experience that's not much fun.</p><p>The only real problem in CoH is that most encounters are so easy that their deep, interesting combat system isn't necessary.  If the CoH characters are likened to chess pieces, with their own specialties and subtleties, the NPC enemies are playing tic-tac-toe.  But the system itself is very, very well done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the solution for this that City of Heroes uses .
Yes , they have the holy trinity of tank , damage dealer , and damage mitigator , but they have two variations on the theme that make combat dynamic and interesting.Specialist Options : Some tanks dodge damage , others resist it , and yet others take the enemy 's full attack and then quickly heal it back up .
Similarly , some damage mitigators heal , others use force fields to prevent damage from happening in the first place , and others debuff the enemy enough that their damage can be shrugged off .
All these options lend themselves to different situations , and the party tactics can change according to which options are present in the group.Hybrids : All CoH archetypes are hybrids .
'Tanks ' serve as tanks and crowd control .
Damage mitigators might also be damage dealers or crowd controllers .
Some damage dealers have abilities that make them serviceable tanks in a pinch ( scrappers ) .
Allowing each character the ability to play two or more roles keeps the game fluid and the player engaged .
But no character can play all three roles of the trinity ; that removes the incentive to group and creates a single-player experience that 's not much fun.The only real problem in CoH is that most encounters are so easy that their deep , interesting combat system is n't necessary .
If the CoH characters are likened to chess pieces , with their own specialties and subtleties , the NPC enemies are playing tic-tac-toe .
But the system itself is very , very well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the solution for this that City of Heroes uses.
Yes, they have the holy trinity of tank, damage dealer, and damage mitigator, but they have two variations on the theme that make combat dynamic and interesting.Specialist Options:  Some tanks dodge damage, others resist it, and yet others take the enemy's full attack and then quickly heal it back up.
Similarly, some damage mitigators heal, others use force fields to prevent damage from happening in the first place, and others debuff the enemy enough that their damage can be shrugged off.
All these options lend themselves to different situations, and the party tactics can change according to which options are present in the group.Hybrids:  All CoH archetypes are hybrids.
'Tanks' serve as tanks and crowd control.
Damage mitigators might also be damage dealers or crowd controllers.
Some damage dealers have abilities that make them serviceable tanks in a pinch (scrappers).
Allowing each character the ability to play two or more roles keeps the game fluid and the player engaged.
But no character can play all three roles of the trinity; that removes the incentive to group and creates a single-player experience that's not much fun.The only real problem in CoH is that most encounters are so easy that their deep, interesting combat system isn't necessary.
If the CoH characters are likened to chess pieces, with their own specialties and subtleties, the NPC enemies are playing tic-tac-toe.
But the system itself is very, very well done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488576</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1261157340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Earth? For God's sake how could you miss Earth?</p></div><p>And heart. Almost wish you could forget that useless kid, doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Earth ?
For God 's sake how could you miss Earth ? And heart .
Almost wish you could forget that useless kid , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earth?
For God's sake how could you miss Earth?And heart.
Almost wish you could forget that useless kid, doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485982</id>
	<title>Wait, I've got another one...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261145760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Rock.<br>Scissors.<br>Paper.</p></div></blockquote><p>When I was a kid, we were so poor we only had rock and paper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock.Scissors.Paper.When I was a kid , we were so poor we only had rock and paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock.Scissors.Paper.When I was a kid, we were so poor we only had rock and paper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486998</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261150800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Matrix Online did something like this. (At least until SOE ran it into the ground. Saving that rant for another time and place.) You could run to the nearest phonebooth and change your loadout (which skills you had active) whenever you wanted. Ye olde Wiki will probably do a better job of explaining than I will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Matrix\_Online#Classes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matrix Online did something like this .
( At least until SOE ran it into the ground .
Saving that rant for another time and place .
) You could run to the nearest phonebooth and change your loadout ( which skills you had active ) whenever you wanted .
Ye olde Wiki will probably do a better job of explaining than I will : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Matrix \ _Online # Classes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matrix Online did something like this.
(At least until SOE ran it into the ground.
Saving that rant for another time and place.
) You could run to the nearest phonebooth and change your loadout (which skills you had active) whenever you wanted.
Ye olde Wiki will probably do a better job of explaining than I will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Matrix\_Online#Classes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491640</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>adrn01</author>
	<datestamp>1261168440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still like to play Oblivion, because you CAN snipe from HUGE distances.<br>You can also stack multiple self-created acrobatics boost spells on yourself, and thusly jump up to sniping positions otherwise unreachable.<br>Unlike WoW, Oblivion does not care if your target cannot reach you - if it is in range, you can shoot it.  After all, that is the POINT of terrain advantage.  The only weakness is that humanoids SHOULD look for cover or run out of range once it is clear they cannot attack you.<br>Sneaking is also well done -- stealth drops off substantially as lighting goes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still like to play Oblivion , because you CAN snipe from HUGE distances.You can also stack multiple self-created acrobatics boost spells on yourself , and thusly jump up to sniping positions otherwise unreachable.Unlike WoW , Oblivion does not care if your target can not reach you - if it is in range , you can shoot it .
After all , that is the POINT of terrain advantage .
The only weakness is that humanoids SHOULD look for cover or run out of range once it is clear they can not attack you.Sneaking is also well done -- stealth drops off substantially as lighting goes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still like to play Oblivion, because you CAN snipe from HUGE distances.You can also stack multiple self-created acrobatics boost spells on yourself, and thusly jump up to sniping positions otherwise unreachable.Unlike WoW, Oblivion does not care if your target cannot reach you - if it is in range, you can shoot it.
After all, that is the POINT of terrain advantage.
The only weakness is that humanoids SHOULD look for cover or run out of range once it is clear they cannot attack you.Sneaking is also well done -- stealth drops off substantially as lighting goes up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486382</id>
	<title>Re:The Trinity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress, steal the Big McGuffin, and get away WITHOUT killing anyone?</p></div></blockquote><p>I dreamily think about MMO spy game where you're trying to maintain the appearance that you're on one side while working and/or communicating with the other side.</p><p>I guess EVE is pretty close but something more approachable (read World of Warcrafted).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress , steal the Big McGuffin , and get away WITHOUT killing anyone ? I dreamily think about MMO spy game where you 're trying to maintain the appearance that you 're on one side while working and/or communicating with the other side.I guess EVE is pretty close but something more approachable ( read World of Warcrafted ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress, steal the Big McGuffin, and get away WITHOUT killing anyone?I dreamily think about MMO spy game where you're trying to maintain the appearance that you're on one side while working and/or communicating with the other side.I guess EVE is pretty close but something more approachable (read World of Warcrafted).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489326</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1261160280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> having seen healers run backwards into a new mob, tanks which run around between enemies trying to take aggro from other characters who don't need it, and damage dealers who have no concept of aggro mitigation,</p></div><p>THAT'S A 50 DKP MINUS!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>having seen healers run backwards into a new mob , tanks which run around between enemies trying to take aggro from other characters who do n't need it , and damage dealers who have no concept of aggro mitigation,THAT 'S A 50 DKP MINUS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> having seen healers run backwards into a new mob, tanks which run around between enemies trying to take aggro from other characters who don't need it, and damage dealers who have no concept of aggro mitigation,THAT'S A 50 DKP MINUS!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487800</id>
	<title>CLASSESSTATS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whats kind of boring with MMorgs is that<br>all classes are hemmed in with their STATS.<br>there seems to be no game out there that actually<br>allows a working build with "alternative" stat builds.<br>-<br>a soldier/tank requires to be strong so if you<br>want a working soldier build you have to keep adding<br>the STRength stat.<br>-or-<br>say a cleric or mage, needs to have INTelligence or<br>CONcentration or s/he cant cast a spell.<br>-<br>go on any forum of any game and you find n00b question<br>about which stat for which class/role and the answers are<br>always the same. people playing MMORGs are actually all<br>just building clones. major difference will just be the gear<br>the acquired<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>-<br>there's room for improvement there i guess; a INTelligent<br>soldier what do you know, or a STRong mage/cleric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whats kind of boring with MMorgs is thatall classes are hemmed in with their STATS.there seems to be no game out there that actuallyallows a working build with " alternative " stat builds.-a soldier/tank requires to be strong so if youwant a working soldier build you have to keep addingthe STRength stat.-or-say a cleric or mage , needs to have INTelligence orCONcentration or s/he cant cast a spell.-go on any forum of any game and you find n00b questionabout which stat for which class/role and the answers arealways the same .
people playing MMORGs are actually alljust building clones .
major difference will just be the gearthe acquired ...-there 's room for improvement there i guess ; a INTelligentsoldier what do you know , or a STRong mage/cleric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whats kind of boring with MMorgs is thatall classes are hemmed in with their STATS.there seems to be no game out there that actuallyallows a working build with "alternative" stat builds.-a soldier/tank requires to be strong so if youwant a working soldier build you have to keep addingthe STRength stat.-or-say a cleric or mage, needs to have INTelligence orCONcentration or s/he cant cast a spell.-go on any forum of any game and you find n00b questionabout which stat for which class/role and the answers arealways the same.
people playing MMORGs are actually alljust building clones.
major difference will just be the gearthe acquired ...-there's room for improvement there i guess; a INTelligentsoldier what do you know, or a STRong mage/cleric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486550</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all your complaints, it sounds like you still finished a 40+ hour game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all your complaints , it sounds like you still finished a 40 + hour game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all your complaints, it sounds like you still finished a 40+ hour game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491194</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Alok</author>
	<datestamp>1261166520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's called "situational awareness" and as a gamer I find its the only true thing that distinguishes "hardcore" players from "casual" players.</i></p><p>Not necessary that hardcore players are better at this, just varies depending on whether they bother about team play at all. I play Anarchy Online, there are plenty of people who will run in getting too much aggro from mobs, run away when boss is almost down because they got hit a couple of times etc. I consider myself a casual player, but its incredibly easy to have appreciative team mates just by assisting the healer and generally not being completely clueless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " situational awareness " and as a gamer I find its the only true thing that distinguishes " hardcore " players from " casual " players.Not necessary that hardcore players are better at this , just varies depending on whether they bother about team play at all .
I play Anarchy Online , there are plenty of people who will run in getting too much aggro from mobs , run away when boss is almost down because they got hit a couple of times etc .
I consider myself a casual player , but its incredibly easy to have appreciative team mates just by assisting the healer and generally not being completely clueless ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "situational awareness" and as a gamer I find its the only true thing that distinguishes "hardcore" players from "casual" players.Not necessary that hardcore players are better at this, just varies depending on whether they bother about team play at all.
I play Anarchy Online, there are plenty of people who will run in getting too much aggro from mobs, run away when boss is almost down because they got hit a couple of times etc.
I consider myself a casual player, but its incredibly easy to have appreciative team mates just by assisting the healer and generally not being completely clueless ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486070</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cat, tin foil, microwave seemed to me to be the only trio that actually made sense.</p><p>paper beats rock!? wtf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cat , tin foil , microwave seemed to me to be the only trio that actually made sense.paper beats rock ! ?
wtf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cat, tin foil, microwave seemed to me to be the only trio that actually made sense.paper beats rock!?
wtf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486840</id>
	<title>Runescape has no character classes</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1261149900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is like the #2 or #3 MMO depending on how you count...<br>
Skill and equipment based "combat triangle" anyone can max any stat, but the gear you are wearing keeps you specialized in a given fight... Metal/heavy armor makes Melee vulnerable to Magic, resistant to Range, Dragonhide armor makes Rangers vulnerable to Melee resistant to Magic, Magic armor gives magic boost and spells are really powerful (including AOE, and life leaching) but they are vulnerable to Range and Melee <br>
There is no practical way to heal others, but when a group goes after a bigbad, there are often roles, but get this:  Every player in a successful group will ROTATE ROLES.<br>  The guy with the most food/potions for healing will tank, soak up damage, and heal himself till he is low, then the next guy, and so on.<br>
I value MMOs where grouping is optional, and basically strong character classes really hinder that type of mechanic; so if I want to go to fight in God Wars against huge bosses for top drops, I have to group, but I can play on my own at any time too... I can also be a mage one day a ranger the next, and a melee fighter the next... so I tend to only need one character another huge plus (to me).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is like the # 2 or # 3 MMO depending on how you count.. . Skill and equipment based " combat triangle " anyone can max any stat , but the gear you are wearing keeps you specialized in a given fight... Metal/heavy armor makes Melee vulnerable to Magic , resistant to Range , Dragonhide armor makes Rangers vulnerable to Melee resistant to Magic , Magic armor gives magic boost and spells are really powerful ( including AOE , and life leaching ) but they are vulnerable to Range and Melee There is no practical way to heal others , but when a group goes after a bigbad , there are often roles , but get this : Every player in a successful group will ROTATE ROLES .
The guy with the most food/potions for healing will tank , soak up damage , and heal himself till he is low , then the next guy , and so on .
I value MMOs where grouping is optional , and basically strong character classes really hinder that type of mechanic ; so if I want to go to fight in God Wars against huge bosses for top drops , I have to group , but I can play on my own at any time too... I can also be a mage one day a ranger the next , and a melee fighter the next... so I tend to only need one character another huge plus ( to me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is like the #2 or #3 MMO depending on how you count...
Skill and equipment based "combat triangle" anyone can max any stat, but the gear you are wearing keeps you specialized in a given fight... Metal/heavy armor makes Melee vulnerable to Magic, resistant to Range, Dragonhide armor makes Rangers vulnerable to Melee resistant to Magic, Magic armor gives magic boost and spells are really powerful (including AOE, and life leaching) but they are vulnerable to Range and Melee 
There is no practical way to heal others, but when a group goes after a bigbad, there are often roles, but get this:  Every player in a successful group will ROTATE ROLES.
The guy with the most food/potions for healing will tank, soak up damage, and heal himself till he is low, then the next guy, and so on.
I value MMOs where grouping is optional, and basically strong character classes really hinder that type of mechanic; so if I want to go to fight in God Wars against huge bosses for top drops, I have to group, but I can play on my own at any time too... I can also be a mage one day a ranger the next, and a melee fighter the next... so I tend to only need one character another huge plus (to me).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486528</id>
	<title>Replace classes with gear choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about, rather than pre-defined classes that are locked in at creation and control what you can wear to improve your abilities... to let the type of play you do evolve based upon what kind of items you pursue and equip.  Carry heavy armor if you want to take a beating, tomes and wands if you want to be nuking, etc.  Perhaps keep multiple sets so you can fall into different roles, or create hybrid classes of your own choosing based on what you choose to have.  That's the basic idea; Of course there can be limitations, or skills you must train and develop to become expert perhaps.  But at least you won't be locked out of a group for playing a Ranger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about , rather than pre-defined classes that are locked in at creation and control what you can wear to improve your abilities... to let the type of play you do evolve based upon what kind of items you pursue and equip .
Carry heavy armor if you want to take a beating , tomes and wands if you want to be nuking , etc .
Perhaps keep multiple sets so you can fall into different roles , or create hybrid classes of your own choosing based on what you choose to have .
That 's the basic idea ; Of course there can be limitations , or skills you must train and develop to become expert perhaps .
But at least you wo n't be locked out of a group for playing a Ranger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about, rather than pre-defined classes that are locked in at creation and control what you can wear to improve your abilities... to let the type of play you do evolve based upon what kind of items you pursue and equip.
Carry heavy armor if you want to take a beating, tomes and wands if you want to be nuking, etc.
Perhaps keep multiple sets so you can fall into different roles, or create hybrid classes of your own choosing based on what you choose to have.
That's the basic idea; Of course there can be limitations, or skills you must train and develop to become expert perhaps.
But at least you won't be locked out of a group for playing a Ranger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30495072</id>
	<title>The Trinity just used to be a quartet before MMOs</title>
	<author>N0Man74</author>
	<datestamp>1261141380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had heard the term tank and healer before MMO's, but for the most part they were simply called "Fighter" and "Cleric".  The term "DPS" wasn't around, but you always wanted a Wizard (and possibly a Rogue).  Those have always been the four core, and picking one of the hybrid classes usually a very poor substitute for the real things.</p><p>At least the "Trinity" has become roles rather than specific classes.  That's at least some progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had heard the term tank and healer before MMO 's , but for the most part they were simply called " Fighter " and " Cleric " .
The term " DPS " was n't around , but you always wanted a Wizard ( and possibly a Rogue ) .
Those have always been the four core , and picking one of the hybrid classes usually a very poor substitute for the real things.At least the " Trinity " has become roles rather than specific classes .
That 's at least some progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had heard the term tank and healer before MMO's, but for the most part they were simply called "Fighter" and "Cleric".
The term "DPS" wasn't around, but you always wanted a Wizard (and possibly a Rogue).
Those have always been the four core, and picking one of the hybrid classes usually a very poor substitute for the real things.At least the "Trinity" has become roles rather than specific classes.
That's at least some progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493990</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261134720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asheron's Call did quite well with this concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asheron 's Call did quite well with this concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asheron's Call did quite well with this concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488442</id>
	<title>Designing from a different direction.</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1261156740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Create the world first.   A consistent world that is "big enough" to allow for many thousands of "heroes - Top 1\%ers" without them unnecessarily disturbing each other.</p><p>And make the world truly persistent.   If UberJoeFoot kills a particular evildoer, then the evildoer is DEAD.   I suggest starting out with a world comparable to a real planet.</p><p>Once you have the world running you make the modifications to allow the 1\%ers to move around/play without being bored to tears making that 2 week journey to town.  Don't forget to limit the ability of players using these work arounds to drive NPC 's out of business.</p><p>Last but not least, create time lines with various story lines. Hints, warnings, local tales....</p><p>In other words, Create the world, then create the stories and player characters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Create the world first .
A consistent world that is " big enough " to allow for many thousands of " heroes - Top 1 \ % ers " without them unnecessarily disturbing each other.And make the world truly persistent .
If UberJoeFoot kills a particular evildoer , then the evildoer is DEAD .
I suggest starting out with a world comparable to a real planet.Once you have the world running you make the modifications to allow the 1 \ % ers to move around/play without being bored to tears making that 2 week journey to town .
Do n't forget to limit the ability of players using these work arounds to drive NPC 's out of business.Last but not least , create time lines with various story lines .
Hints , warnings , local tales....In other words , Create the world , then create the stories and player characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Create the world first.
A consistent world that is "big enough" to allow for many thousands of "heroes - Top 1\%ers" without them unnecessarily disturbing each other.And make the world truly persistent.
If UberJoeFoot kills a particular evildoer, then the evildoer is DEAD.
I suggest starting out with a world comparable to a real planet.Once you have the world running you make the modifications to allow the 1\%ers to move around/play without being bored to tears making that 2 week journey to town.
Don't forget to limit the ability of players using these work arounds to drive NPC 's out of business.Last but not least, create time lines with various story lines.
Hints, warnings, local tales....In other words, Create the world, then create the stories and player characters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486956</id>
	<title>Could everyone forget about the way of the NEW MMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261150560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back then you had skills like swords, tactics, healing, anatomy, magic, evocation, meditation and with a combination of those skills you could create a completely custom character.<br>It wasn't about quest grinding to gather the ultimate gear.<br>It was about designing a solid character and knowing how to use it.<br>For instance, I had a PK (player killer) with stats like 100 strength (melee damage and total HP), 50 dexterity (melee swing speed and archery damage), 100 intelligence (mana), swords, tactics (increases the chance to hit), anatomy (increases attack damage and heals), lumber jacking (when equipped with an axe he could take 99\% of someone's health in one hit), magic, evocation (increases magic damage/heals), healing,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  With this character I would open up with a spell or two, equip my axe and try to get a hit in.  I usually ended up attacking a strong opponent who knew how to throw on a quick mage heal, cast paralyze on me, equip a spear, and turn the fight around.  I would then hit my defensive macros healing myself with spells and bandages.  Then turn on my attacks again with a couple of offensive spells, maybe paralize him, equip the axe and pray I hit...This would go on until someone hit the wrong macro or just ran out of steam possibly lasting 30mins-1hr for just a 1-on-1 battle.<br>This is how battles use to be when UO was the leader of MMORPGs and I wish it would go back to that but even UO is all about the gear now and they've opened up a bunch of other skills and character paths.<br>It just feels like MMORPGs have become to complex and bloated with all the gear and skill trees.  Then they are to simple with the lack of character designs and PvP interaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then you had skills like swords , tactics , healing , anatomy , magic , evocation , meditation and with a combination of those skills you could create a completely custom character.It was n't about quest grinding to gather the ultimate gear.It was about designing a solid character and knowing how to use it.For instance , I had a PK ( player killer ) with stats like 100 strength ( melee damage and total HP ) , 50 dexterity ( melee swing speed and archery damage ) , 100 intelligence ( mana ) , swords , tactics ( increases the chance to hit ) , anatomy ( increases attack damage and heals ) , lumber jacking ( when equipped with an axe he could take 99 \ % of someone 's health in one hit ) , magic , evocation ( increases magic damage/heals ) , healing , ... With this character I would open up with a spell or two , equip my axe and try to get a hit in .
I usually ended up attacking a strong opponent who knew how to throw on a quick mage heal , cast paralyze on me , equip a spear , and turn the fight around .
I would then hit my defensive macros healing myself with spells and bandages .
Then turn on my attacks again with a couple of offensive spells , maybe paralize him , equip the axe and pray I hit...This would go on until someone hit the wrong macro or just ran out of steam possibly lasting 30mins-1hr for just a 1-on-1 battle.This is how battles use to be when UO was the leader of MMORPGs and I wish it would go back to that but even UO is all about the gear now and they 've opened up a bunch of other skills and character paths.It just feels like MMORPGs have become to complex and bloated with all the gear and skill trees .
Then they are to simple with the lack of character designs and PvP interaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then you had skills like swords, tactics, healing, anatomy, magic, evocation, meditation and with a combination of those skills you could create a completely custom character.It wasn't about quest grinding to gather the ultimate gear.It was about designing a solid character and knowing how to use it.For instance, I had a PK (player killer) with stats like 100 strength (melee damage and total HP), 50 dexterity (melee swing speed and archery damage), 100 intelligence (mana), swords, tactics (increases the chance to hit), anatomy (increases attack damage and heals), lumber jacking (when equipped with an axe he could take 99\% of someone's health in one hit), magic, evocation (increases magic damage/heals), healing, ...  With this character I would open up with a spell or two, equip my axe and try to get a hit in.
I usually ended up attacking a strong opponent who knew how to throw on a quick mage heal, cast paralyze on me, equip a spear, and turn the fight around.
I would then hit my defensive macros healing myself with spells and bandages.
Then turn on my attacks again with a couple of offensive spells, maybe paralize him, equip the axe and pray I hit...This would go on until someone hit the wrong macro or just ran out of steam possibly lasting 30mins-1hr for just a 1-on-1 battle.This is how battles use to be when UO was the leader of MMORPGs and I wish it would go back to that but even UO is all about the gear now and they've opened up a bunch of other skills and character paths.It just feels like MMORPGs have become to complex and bloated with all the gear and skill trees.
Then they are to simple with the lack of character designs and PvP interaction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886</id>
	<title>The Trinity</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1261145100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny; I played RPGs for a couple of decades or more, and until I got to MMO RPGs, had never really heard the terms tank and dps.</p><p>The reason that the MMO genre has devolved to these reductionist archetypes is because MMO gameplay is about one thing and one thing only: doing damage to kill monsters before they kill you.  That's it.  Pen and paper RPGs have many, many alternative ways to tell stories and player choices.</p><p>Few MMOs I've ever heard of offer anything in the way of goals that don't boil down to killing some stuff.  Sure, you might be reuniting two warring factions...but never through discussion or negotiation, generally it's about rescuing someone from some monster/prison/boss or bringing them 10 worg hearts (involving killing many more than 10 worgs).  Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress, steal the Big McGuffin, and get away WITHOUT killing anyone?</p><p>If your gameplay can be boiled down to a function including monster health, monster damage, player health, and player damage, you're going to get players naturally 'gaming' the characters to fit that function as efficiently as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny ; I played RPGs for a couple of decades or more , and until I got to MMO RPGs , had never really heard the terms tank and dps.The reason that the MMO genre has devolved to these reductionist archetypes is because MMO gameplay is about one thing and one thing only : doing damage to kill monsters before they kill you .
That 's it .
Pen and paper RPGs have many , many alternative ways to tell stories and player choices.Few MMOs I 've ever heard of offer anything in the way of goals that do n't boil down to killing some stuff .
Sure , you might be reuniting two warring factions...but never through discussion or negotiation , generally it 's about rescuing someone from some monster/prison/boss or bringing them 10 worg hearts ( involving killing many more than 10 worgs ) .
Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress , steal the Big McGuffin , and get away WITHOUT killing anyone ? If your gameplay can be boiled down to a function including monster health , monster damage , player health , and player damage , you 're going to get players naturally 'gaming ' the characters to fit that function as efficiently as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny; I played RPGs for a couple of decades or more, and until I got to MMO RPGs, had never really heard the terms tank and dps.The reason that the MMO genre has devolved to these reductionist archetypes is because MMO gameplay is about one thing and one thing only: doing damage to kill monsters before they kill you.
That's it.
Pen and paper RPGs have many, many alternative ways to tell stories and player choices.Few MMOs I've ever heard of offer anything in the way of goals that don't boil down to killing some stuff.
Sure, you might be reuniting two warring factions...but never through discussion or negotiation, generally it's about rescuing someone from some monster/prison/boss or bringing them 10 worg hearts (involving killing many more than 10 worgs).
Is there ever any possibility that you could sneak into the enemy fortress, steal the Big McGuffin, and get away WITHOUT killing anyone?If your gameplay can be boiled down to a function including monster health, monster damage, player health, and player damage, you're going to get players naturally 'gaming' the characters to fit that function as efficiently as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490832</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1261165200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>You can't make classes "jack of all trades." It doesn't work. </b></p><p>Sure you can.  Deus Ex, for instance, allowed you to make your own specialized character to suit your needs.  Many other games allow you to do stuff like learn specific skills that you find useful without having to resort to a cookie-cutter class system.  And quite a few just do away with it entirely or let you decide what to do and what to wear and so on.(usually only limited by money and influence).</p><p>The fact is that classes are a thirty year old crutch inherited from the days of pen and paper RPGs.  They did it that way to make the players have less choices and force the game mechanics to be simpler for the person running the game. "Must act like X, must do Y".   Most games still do in fact, though quite a few also don't follow those sorts of systems.  Hero comes to mind as one RPG that just threw away the idea of cookie cutter templates and classes.  But it was far from the first.</p><p>It's simply a matter of the programmers being lazy and the game being designed by type-A managers who can't think outside of the box.  They are "idea men" who want to make a game and don't care about trying to really do anything different.  They license someone else's engine and level construction tools and then grab a few basic ideas and presto... Yet another MMOG that only is different in the setting and a few graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't make classes " jack of all trades .
" It does n't work .
Sure you can .
Deus Ex , for instance , allowed you to make your own specialized character to suit your needs .
Many other games allow you to do stuff like learn specific skills that you find useful without having to resort to a cookie-cutter class system .
And quite a few just do away with it entirely or let you decide what to do and what to wear and so on .
( usually only limited by money and influence ) .The fact is that classes are a thirty year old crutch inherited from the days of pen and paper RPGs .
They did it that way to make the players have less choices and force the game mechanics to be simpler for the person running the game .
" Must act like X , must do Y " .
Most games still do in fact , though quite a few also do n't follow those sorts of systems .
Hero comes to mind as one RPG that just threw away the idea of cookie cutter templates and classes .
But it was far from the first.It 's simply a matter of the programmers being lazy and the game being designed by type-A managers who ca n't think outside of the box .
They are " idea men " who want to make a game and do n't care about trying to really do anything different .
They license someone else 's engine and level construction tools and then grab a few basic ideas and presto... Yet another MMOG that only is different in the setting and a few graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't make classes "jack of all trades.
" It doesn't work.
Sure you can.
Deus Ex, for instance, allowed you to make your own specialized character to suit your needs.
Many other games allow you to do stuff like learn specific skills that you find useful without having to resort to a cookie-cutter class system.
And quite a few just do away with it entirely or let you decide what to do and what to wear and so on.
(usually only limited by money and influence).The fact is that classes are a thirty year old crutch inherited from the days of pen and paper RPGs.
They did it that way to make the players have less choices and force the game mechanics to be simpler for the person running the game.
"Must act like X, must do Y".
Most games still do in fact, though quite a few also don't follow those sorts of systems.
Hero comes to mind as one RPG that just threw away the idea of cookie cutter templates and classes.
But it was far from the first.It's simply a matter of the programmers being lazy and the game being designed by type-A managers who can't think outside of the box.
They are "idea men" who want to make a game and don't care about trying to really do anything different.
They license someone else's engine and level construction tools and then grab a few basic ideas and presto... Yet another MMOG that only is different in the setting and a few graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490348</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1261163520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These all are valid concerns except for magic. The only purpose of the latter is to
increase the playability at the expense of realism. It should be done tastefully and in a way
which allows to suspend disbelief, but it should definitely give a player abilities that are funky.

</p><p>A bigger problem than all of these is the fact that computer opponents are incredibly stupid.
Fighting a mob in WoW feels like a resource management exercise, which it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These all are valid concerns except for magic .
The only purpose of the latter is to increase the playability at the expense of realism .
It should be done tastefully and in a way which allows to suspend disbelief , but it should definitely give a player abilities that are funky .
A bigger problem than all of these is the fact that computer opponents are incredibly stupid .
Fighting a mob in WoW feels like a resource management exercise , which it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These all are valid concerns except for magic.
The only purpose of the latter is to
increase the playability at the expense of realism.
It should be done tastefully and in a way
which allows to suspend disbelief, but it should definitely give a player abilities that are funky.
A bigger problem than all of these is the fact that computer opponents are incredibly stupid.
Fighting a mob in WoW feels like a resource management exercise, which it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488452</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1261156800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enchanters are clearly the coolest class in between massive nerf sessions.</p><p>I miss the days of old sebilous-- stopping trains of 15 mobs cold.  Soloing areas that required groups with charmed, hasted, equipped pets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enchanters are clearly the coolest class in between massive nerf sessions.I miss the days of old sebilous-- stopping trains of 15 mobs cold .
Soloing areas that required groups with charmed , hasted , equipped pets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enchanters are clearly the coolest class in between massive nerf sessions.I miss the days of old sebilous-- stopping trains of 15 mobs cold.
Soloing areas that required groups with charmed, hasted, equipped pets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489936</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is the gheyist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. topic ever</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the gheyist / .
topic ever</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the gheyist /.
topic ever</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486612</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish there was a "+1 insightful, but depressing" moderation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Seriously though, you sum it up pretty well... obviously games aren't supposed to be entirely realistic, but the MMO (or even regular computer-based rpg) gameplay dynamic really hasn't changed or developed much when you get down to it. One of the reasons why I quit WOW was that despite there being this huge, cool looking world with a genuinely interesting backstory and a great interface, there's really nothing at all to actually do in the game other than grind on mobs, grind on getting materials, and grind on leveling up abilities that use those materials. Or grind the same battlegrounds all the time. Which, admittedly, were a lot of fun for a while, but it ended up becoming an exercise in mechanics rather than strategy or even fun.</p><p>Oh well... hopefully someone will come up with something new some day!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there was a " + 1 insightful , but depressing " moderation ; ) Seriously though , you sum it up pretty well... obviously games are n't supposed to be entirely realistic , but the MMO ( or even regular computer-based rpg ) gameplay dynamic really has n't changed or developed much when you get down to it .
One of the reasons why I quit WOW was that despite there being this huge , cool looking world with a genuinely interesting backstory and a great interface , there 's really nothing at all to actually do in the game other than grind on mobs , grind on getting materials , and grind on leveling up abilities that use those materials .
Or grind the same battlegrounds all the time .
Which , admittedly , were a lot of fun for a while , but it ended up becoming an exercise in mechanics rather than strategy or even fun.Oh well... hopefully someone will come up with something new some day !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there was a "+1 insightful, but depressing" moderation ;)Seriously though, you sum it up pretty well... obviously games aren't supposed to be entirely realistic, but the MMO (or even regular computer-based rpg) gameplay dynamic really hasn't changed or developed much when you get down to it.
One of the reasons why I quit WOW was that despite there being this huge, cool looking world with a genuinely interesting backstory and a great interface, there's really nothing at all to actually do in the game other than grind on mobs, grind on getting materials, and grind on leveling up abilities that use those materials.
Or grind the same battlegrounds all the time.
Which, admittedly, were a lot of fun for a while, but it ended up becoming an exercise in mechanics rather than strategy or even fun.Oh well... hopefully someone will come up with something new some day!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488282</id>
	<title>Missing Option</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1261156200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article summarised the current state fairly well, but overlooked at least one obvious solution.  There's no reason that different types of character can't be better "tanks" for different types of enemy.  As an example, a mage type enemy might have it's attacks best resisted by a mage (traditional DPS) or priest (traditional Support) character, and be damaged best by warriors (traditional Tank).  This would, of course, require each class to have mechanics for the roles, but there's no reason that couldn't be done.<br>This has always seemed like a natural solution to me.  It provides the familiarity of a role, with the dynaics of various fights having different roles required of different characters.  People would still "know what to do", but also get variety.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article summarised the current state fairly well , but overlooked at least one obvious solution .
There 's no reason that different types of character ca n't be better " tanks " for different types of enemy .
As an example , a mage type enemy might have it 's attacks best resisted by a mage ( traditional DPS ) or priest ( traditional Support ) character , and be damaged best by warriors ( traditional Tank ) .
This would , of course , require each class to have mechanics for the roles , but there 's no reason that could n't be done.This has always seemed like a natural solution to me .
It provides the familiarity of a role , with the dynaics of various fights having different roles required of different characters .
People would still " know what to do " , but also get variety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article summarised the current state fairly well, but overlooked at least one obvious solution.
There's no reason that different types of character can't be better "tanks" for different types of enemy.
As an example, a mage type enemy might have it's attacks best resisted by a mage (traditional DPS) or priest (traditional Support) character, and be damaged best by warriors (traditional Tank).
This would, of course, require each class to have mechanics for the roles, but there's no reason that couldn't be done.This has always seemed like a natural solution to me.
It provides the familiarity of a role, with the dynaics of various fights having different roles required of different characters.
People would still "know what to do", but also get variety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30497510</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261219860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, Dragon Age: Origins isn't real life? When did this happen? My entire life has been a lie D=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , Dragon Age : Origins is n't real life ?
When did this happen ?
My entire life has been a lie D =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, Dragon Age: Origins isn't real life?
When did this happen?
My entire life has been a lie D=</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486454</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1261148100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That might work for singleplayer, as there is a scripted storyline that might put you up against a variety of opponents.</p><p>But in multiplayer, e.g. in a dessert level, EVERYONE would be equipped the same! The whole area would be filled with batmans in the samew Lawrence-of-arabia-Batsuit!</p><p>To keep it balanced, there has to be a cost attached to each advantage you get. (Not exactly needed in singleplayer. Bots don't cancel their subscriptions just because the don't have a chance of winning)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That might work for singleplayer , as there is a scripted storyline that might put you up against a variety of opponents.But in multiplayer , e.g .
in a dessert level , EVERYONE would be equipped the same !
The whole area would be filled with batmans in the samew Lawrence-of-arabia-Batsuit ! To keep it balanced , there has to be a cost attached to each advantage you get .
( Not exactly needed in singleplayer .
Bots do n't cancel their subscriptions just because the do n't have a chance of winning )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might work for singleplayer, as there is a scripted storyline that might put you up against a variety of opponents.But in multiplayer, e.g.
in a dessert level, EVERYONE would be equipped the same!
The whole area would be filled with batmans in the samew Lawrence-of-arabia-Batsuit!To keep it balanced, there has to be a cost attached to each advantage you get.
(Not exactly needed in singleplayer.
Bots don't cancel their subscriptions just because the don't have a chance of winning)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500642</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261218780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.</p><p>Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.</p></div></blockquote><p>I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class. I'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.</p></div></blockquote><p>While you can't switch 'on the fly', UO has allowed you to choose your own array of skills, abilities, and attributes for something like a decade now.  (And prior to AoS, you could swap out armor and accessories to swap between being fast and light, or a slow brick.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>While, again, you can't swap 'on the fly' (there are limits to how often you can swap between them), CoX allows you two builds within the same powerset.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg 's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class .
I 'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.While you ca n't switch 'on the fly ' , UO has allowed you to choose your own array of skills , abilities , and attributes for something like a decade now .
( And prior to AoS , you could swap out armor and accessories to swap between being fast and light , or a slow brick .
)   While , again , you ca n't swap 'on the fly ' ( there are limits to how often you can swap between them ) , CoX allows you two builds within the same powerset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.I always hated the leveling dynamic in rpg's and the idea that you had to be locked into one class.
I'm not likely to have the time to play the game again and it would be fun to play different classes.While you can't switch 'on the fly', UO has allowed you to choose your own array of skills, abilities, and attributes for something like a decade now.
(And prior to AoS, you could swap out armor and accessories to swap between being fast and light, or a slow brick.
)
  While, again, you can't swap 'on the fly' (there are limits to how often you can swap between them), CoX allows you two builds within the same powerset.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486148</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>BlackCobra43</author>
	<datestamp>1261146660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, if I understand the crux of your argument, mmorpgs are ludicrous because they don't reflect accurately the life of a typical middle age soldier.<br> <br>

Let's run down that checklist<br> <br>

-Malnourished<br>
-Enslaved (serfdom) to your liege<br>
-Likely to die/sustain long term damage from any wound sustained, no matter how minor<br>
-Underequipped (only the liege`s knights get any armor at all<br>

Gee, that sure sounds like the life I'd want to play in MY fantasy! Your arguments, while true, are completly irrelevant because <b>nobody plays a fantasy game for realism</b>. This is not a **** re-enactement of Ye Olde Dragone Slayinge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I understand the crux of your argument , mmorpgs are ludicrous because they do n't reflect accurately the life of a typical middle age soldier .
Let 's run down that checklist -Malnourished -Enslaved ( serfdom ) to your liege -Likely to die/sustain long term damage from any wound sustained , no matter how minor -Underequipped ( only the liege ` s knights get any armor at all Gee , that sure sounds like the life I 'd want to play in MY fantasy !
Your arguments , while true , are completly irrelevant because nobody plays a fantasy game for realism .
This is not a * * * * re-enactement of Ye Olde Dragone Slayinge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I understand the crux of your argument, mmorpgs are ludicrous because they don't reflect accurately the life of a typical middle age soldier.
Let's run down that checklist 

-Malnourished
-Enslaved (serfdom) to your liege
-Likely to die/sustain long term damage from any wound sustained, no matter how minor
-Underequipped (only the liege`s knights get any armor at all

Gee, that sure sounds like the life I'd want to play in MY fantasy!
Your arguments, while true, are completly irrelevant because nobody plays a fantasy game for realism.
This is not a **** re-enactement of Ye Olde Dragone Slayinge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</id>
	<title>Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1261143480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And my question is: why would you want to do such thing?</p><p>If you start with a system based on: Two sides dealing damage to an amount of health, the first to reach o health loses.</p><p>You'll reach the roles of:<br>Dealing the most damage, receiving the least damage, and avoiding reaching the 0.</p><p>If you want another set of classes, you'll have to change the system, not the allowed skills.</p><p>For example:<br>- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).</p><p>- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.</p><p>etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And my question is : why would you want to do such thing ? If you start with a system based on : Two sides dealing damage to an amount of health , the first to reach o health loses.You 'll reach the roles of : Dealing the most damage , receiving the least damage , and avoiding reaching the 0.If you want another set of classes , you 'll have to change the system , not the allowed skills.For example : - Add one more number to push into the negatives ( typically , armor and shield ) and you 'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number ( a shield healer of some sort ) a class that damages said number ( An EMP mage ) and a class that endures more damage to said number ( A shield...tank ) .- Add positional advantage ( complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons ) and you 'll have a class that restricts movement , one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my question is: why would you want to do such thing?If you start with a system based on: Two sides dealing damage to an amount of health, the first to reach o health loses.You'll reach the roles of:Dealing the most damage, receiving the least damage, and avoiding reaching the 0.If you want another set of classes, you'll have to change the system, not the allowed skills.For example:- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485650</id>
	<title>BadAnalogyGuy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot posters fall into three basic categories:<br>Good, bad, and BadAnalogyGuy.</p><p>Good posters are insightful interesting or funny. Bad posters are persistent trolls.<br>BadAnalogyGuy is a raving lunatic scientologist, and so goes in his own category.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot posters fall into three basic categories : Good , bad , and BadAnalogyGuy.Good posters are insightful interesting or funny .
Bad posters are persistent trolls.BadAnalogyGuy is a raving lunatic scientologist , and so goes in his own category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot posters fall into three basic categories:Good, bad, and BadAnalogyGuy.Good posters are insightful interesting or funny.
Bad posters are persistent trolls.BadAnalogyGuy is a raving lunatic scientologist, and so goes in his own category.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489180</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1261159680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. The article seems to recommend switching from "Rock, Paper, Scissors" to (from a Se8infeld episode) "Rock, Rock". And that's just ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
The article seems to recommend switching from " Rock , Paper , Scissors " to ( from a Se8infeld episode ) " Rock , Rock " .
And that 's just ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
The article seems to recommend switching from "Rock, Paper, Scissors" to (from a Se8infeld episode) "Rock, Rock".
And that's just ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485758</id>
	<title>Eve-Online</title>
	<author>Miv333</author>
	<datestamp>1261143960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lacks classes...  There are dedicated ships to repairing other ships, but they are not an essential part of the game, and any ship can fit the modules, they just don't get the extra bonus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lacks classes... There are dedicated ships to repairing other ships , but they are not an essential part of the game , and any ship can fit the modules , they just do n't get the extra bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lacks classes...  There are dedicated ships to repairing other ships, but they are not an essential part of the game, and any ship can fit the modules, they just don't get the extra bonus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486408</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem as I see it here is more about getting strategy into the game, and there just happens to be such genre called just that, strategy games.</p><p>I'm mostly thinking of Rome total war, where there was a rock, paper, scissors element in.</p><p>It worked like this if I can remember correctly:<br>Phalanx spearmen beats everything head on.<br>Cavalry beats everything while charging (except charging into spears).<br>Swordsmen beats everything in melee.<br>Axemen beats heavily armored units.<br>Slingers, bowmen beats everything at a distance.<br>Artillery beats everything at a even grater distance.<br>Skirmishers beats non-ranged infantry on open ground.<br>Light cavalry beats lightly armored enemies.<br>Heavy cavalry beats everything in melee.<br>Cavalry archers beats everything except light cavalry on open ground.<br>Elephants beats everything (even heavy cavalry and swordsmen) in melee, except phalanxes.</p><p>And then one has to consider the terrain, morale and lots of other things.<br>And this isn't even strategy, just the rules of the strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem as I see it here is more about getting strategy into the game , and there just happens to be such genre called just that , strategy games.I 'm mostly thinking of Rome total war , where there was a rock , paper , scissors element in.It worked like this if I can remember correctly : Phalanx spearmen beats everything head on.Cavalry beats everything while charging ( except charging into spears ) .Swordsmen beats everything in melee.Axemen beats heavily armored units.Slingers , bowmen beats everything at a distance.Artillery beats everything at a even grater distance.Skirmishers beats non-ranged infantry on open ground.Light cavalry beats lightly armored enemies.Heavy cavalry beats everything in melee.Cavalry archers beats everything except light cavalry on open ground.Elephants beats everything ( even heavy cavalry and swordsmen ) in melee , except phalanxes.And then one has to consider the terrain , morale and lots of other things.And this is n't even strategy , just the rules of the strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem as I see it here is more about getting strategy into the game, and there just happens to be such genre called just that, strategy games.I'm mostly thinking of Rome total war, where there was a rock, paper, scissors element in.It worked like this if I can remember correctly:Phalanx spearmen beats everything head on.Cavalry beats everything while charging (except charging into spears).Swordsmen beats everything in melee.Axemen beats heavily armored units.Slingers, bowmen beats everything at a distance.Artillery beats everything at a even grater distance.Skirmishers beats non-ranged infantry on open ground.Light cavalry beats lightly armored enemies.Heavy cavalry beats everything in melee.Cavalry archers beats everything except light cavalry on open ground.Elephants beats everything (even heavy cavalry and swordsmen) in melee, except phalanxes.And then one has to consider the terrain, morale and lots of other things.And this isn't even strategy, just the rules of the strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485902</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261145220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works in theory, but fails utterly in practice. 90\% of all MMO combats are 1v1, despite Blizzard's efforts to the contrary. You can't have a fun game if you know you're going to dominate 33\% of opponents and you know you have no chance against some other 33\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works in theory , but fails utterly in practice .
90 \ % of all MMO combats are 1v1 , despite Blizzard 's efforts to the contrary .
You ca n't have a fun game if you know you 're going to dominate 33 \ % of opponents and you know you have no chance against some other 33 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works in theory, but fails utterly in practice.
90\% of all MMO combats are 1v1, despite Blizzard's efforts to the contrary.
You can't have a fun game if you know you're going to dominate 33\% of opponents and you know you have no chance against some other 33\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30494982</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1261140600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because what I want in a fantasy game is realism...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because what I want in a fantasy game is realism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because what I want in a fantasy game is realism...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486292</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why Star Wars Galaxies had to potential to be the greatest MMO of all time.  It's just too bad that they had such terrible management post-launch (not to mention development practices with all the bugs), because it was essentially the "perfect" starting point for a game.  If they had been able to add content instead of continually screwing with mechanics, it could have been in WoW's place right now.</p><p>Aside from equipment, a skilled new character was only a matter of a weeks away from joining older players.  If you decided you wanted a new role, you were only a week or two away from shifting over.  If you didn't enjoy combat at all and just wanted to use the game as a social medium, you could even do that and still provide a useful function to other players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why Star Wars Galaxies had to potential to be the greatest MMO of all time .
It 's just too bad that they had such terrible management post-launch ( not to mention development practices with all the bugs ) , because it was essentially the " perfect " starting point for a game .
If they had been able to add content instead of continually screwing with mechanics , it could have been in WoW 's place right now.Aside from equipment , a skilled new character was only a matter of a weeks away from joining older players .
If you decided you wanted a new role , you were only a week or two away from shifting over .
If you did n't enjoy combat at all and just wanted to use the game as a social medium , you could even do that and still provide a useful function to other players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why Star Wars Galaxies had to potential to be the greatest MMO of all time.
It's just too bad that they had such terrible management post-launch (not to mention development practices with all the bugs), because it was essentially the "perfect" starting point for a game.
If they had been able to add content instead of continually screwing with mechanics, it could have been in WoW's place right now.Aside from equipment, a skilled new character was only a matter of a weeks away from joining older players.
If you decided you wanted a new role, you were only a week or two away from shifting over.
If you didn't enjoy combat at all and just wanted to use the game as a social medium, you could even do that and still provide a useful function to other players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486316</id>
	<title>Phantasy Star Online</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1261147500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've basically played two MMORPGs (level of "RPGness" being debatable): PSO and WoW.</p><p>I guess I wouldn't call PSO a MMORPG but more like just a ORPG since parties are limited to four and if you don't group up, you won't meet anyone out in the world.</p><p>There are no healers or tanks in PSO.  There's no aggro either.  There's three races (newman, human, and androids), three classes (force [caster], ranger, hunter [melee]), and male/female.  Not every combo is allowed (no female human hunters, no android casters, no newman rangers) but each one that is allowed is different.  All non-androids can use techniques (spells) to varying degrees.  Females can use higher level spells than males.  Androids regen health when not moving and has traps (explosive, freeze, and confusion).  Newmans regen technique points (mana) when not moving.  Rangers and hunters can use shields; forces are limited to barriers.</p><p>Spells are foie (fire), barta (ice), zonde (lightning), grants (holy), and megid (dark).  The first three comes in three flavors (simple, normal, and hard).  There's one healing spell.  One.  It's an AOE heal.  There's four buff/debuff spells that raises/lowers armor and power.  There's no buffs for caster damage but there are armor pieces and weapons that can boost either specific spells or a class of spells.  There are limits on what classes can equip but there's nothing preventing players from decking out a force with melee weapons and physical dps armor to let them wade into combat.  The buff/debuff spells really closes the gap between the armor differences.</p><p>And the system works.  It's could use gobs of polish for sure.  The "depth" of the system comes from quickly changing weapons but for pure casters, generally you stand at the doorways of rooms and snipe away until the boss.</p><p>There is some level requirements for gear but most of the requirements are based on stats.  Gotta have such&amp;such amount of hit to equip this gun or this much strength to swing this sword.</p><p>I'm pretty sure I explained more than I had to just to get to the point of saying, "Hey, it's possible to make a game without resorting to the tank/healer/dps pattern."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've basically played two MMORPGs ( level of " RPGness " being debatable ) : PSO and WoW.I guess I would n't call PSO a MMORPG but more like just a ORPG since parties are limited to four and if you do n't group up , you wo n't meet anyone out in the world.There are no healers or tanks in PSO .
There 's no aggro either .
There 's three races ( newman , human , and androids ) , three classes ( force [ caster ] , ranger , hunter [ melee ] ) , and male/female .
Not every combo is allowed ( no female human hunters , no android casters , no newman rangers ) but each one that is allowed is different .
All non-androids can use techniques ( spells ) to varying degrees .
Females can use higher level spells than males .
Androids regen health when not moving and has traps ( explosive , freeze , and confusion ) .
Newmans regen technique points ( mana ) when not moving .
Rangers and hunters can use shields ; forces are limited to barriers.Spells are foie ( fire ) , barta ( ice ) , zonde ( lightning ) , grants ( holy ) , and megid ( dark ) .
The first three comes in three flavors ( simple , normal , and hard ) .
There 's one healing spell .
One. It 's an AOE heal .
There 's four buff/debuff spells that raises/lowers armor and power .
There 's no buffs for caster damage but there are armor pieces and weapons that can boost either specific spells or a class of spells .
There are limits on what classes can equip but there 's nothing preventing players from decking out a force with melee weapons and physical dps armor to let them wade into combat .
The buff/debuff spells really closes the gap between the armor differences.And the system works .
It 's could use gobs of polish for sure .
The " depth " of the system comes from quickly changing weapons but for pure casters , generally you stand at the doorways of rooms and snipe away until the boss.There is some level requirements for gear but most of the requirements are based on stats .
Got ta have such&amp;such amount of hit to equip this gun or this much strength to swing this sword.I 'm pretty sure I explained more than I had to just to get to the point of saying , " Hey , it 's possible to make a game without resorting to the tank/healer/dps pattern .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've basically played two MMORPGs (level of "RPGness" being debatable): PSO and WoW.I guess I wouldn't call PSO a MMORPG but more like just a ORPG since parties are limited to four and if you don't group up, you won't meet anyone out in the world.There are no healers or tanks in PSO.
There's no aggro either.
There's three races (newman, human, and androids), three classes (force [caster], ranger, hunter [melee]), and male/female.
Not every combo is allowed (no female human hunters, no android casters, no newman rangers) but each one that is allowed is different.
All non-androids can use techniques (spells) to varying degrees.
Females can use higher level spells than males.
Androids regen health when not moving and has traps (explosive, freeze, and confusion).
Newmans regen technique points (mana) when not moving.
Rangers and hunters can use shields; forces are limited to barriers.Spells are foie (fire), barta (ice), zonde (lightning), grants (holy), and megid (dark).
The first three comes in three flavors (simple, normal, and hard).
There's one healing spell.
One.  It's an AOE heal.
There's four buff/debuff spells that raises/lowers armor and power.
There's no buffs for caster damage but there are armor pieces and weapons that can boost either specific spells or a class of spells.
There are limits on what classes can equip but there's nothing preventing players from decking out a force with melee weapons and physical dps armor to let them wade into combat.
The buff/debuff spells really closes the gap between the armor differences.And the system works.
It's could use gobs of polish for sure.
The "depth" of the system comes from quickly changing weapons but for pure casters, generally you stand at the doorways of rooms and snipe away until the boss.There is some level requirements for gear but most of the requirements are based on stats.
Gotta have such&amp;such amount of hit to equip this gun or this much strength to swing this sword.I'm pretty sure I explained more than I had to just to get to the point of saying, "Hey, it's possible to make a game without resorting to the tank/healer/dps pattern.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492388</id>
	<title>Re:I like the City of Heroes solution.</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1261127700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Specialist Options [for tanks]:</i> <br> <br>WoW had that.  If you were up against a caster boss that did little physical damage, you'd want a druid.  Because they didn't have a shield or parry, they were given more armor and health.  And when the caster casts, you can't parry.  So the druid could take the most damage and live.  Wanted to have a off-tank pulling adds and holding them to the side while someone else works on the raid boss?  Gotta have a pally.  No other class could damage so many at the same time and hold them there when the healers were spamming super-big heals on the main tank getting wailed on by the boss.  And for a single boss that hits physical damage?  Warriors only.<br> <br>That was the initial design.  Then there were mechanics that messed with it (pallys managed to get to and stay uncrushable for entire battles, something no warrior could do, making them better at taking physical damage, so that they were better than warriors for most encounters, if they could keep the aggro and not run out of mana).  And the "tanks are tanks" philosophies were introduced to level everything where druid's swipe was changed to hit an infinite number of enemies, and warriors got reflective damage and could AOE with shockwave and thunderclap to hold groups.  So pallys were no longer necessary to hold groups.  But then, pallys got mana buffs and survivability buffs and everyone got aggro/DPS buffs.  So it was dumbed down.  All you need is to pile on health, and you'll do fine for almost all encounters.  The only time anything other than health matters anymore is when you are doing raids and you will run your healers OOM if you can't avoid the occasional blow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specialist Options [ for tanks ] : WoW had that .
If you were up against a caster boss that did little physical damage , you 'd want a druid .
Because they did n't have a shield or parry , they were given more armor and health .
And when the caster casts , you ca n't parry .
So the druid could take the most damage and live .
Wanted to have a off-tank pulling adds and holding them to the side while someone else works on the raid boss ?
Got ta have a pally .
No other class could damage so many at the same time and hold them there when the healers were spamming super-big heals on the main tank getting wailed on by the boss .
And for a single boss that hits physical damage ?
Warriors only .
That was the initial design .
Then there were mechanics that messed with it ( pallys managed to get to and stay uncrushable for entire battles , something no warrior could do , making them better at taking physical damage , so that they were better than warriors for most encounters , if they could keep the aggro and not run out of mana ) .
And the " tanks are tanks " philosophies were introduced to level everything where druid 's swipe was changed to hit an infinite number of enemies , and warriors got reflective damage and could AOE with shockwave and thunderclap to hold groups .
So pallys were no longer necessary to hold groups .
But then , pallys got mana buffs and survivability buffs and everyone got aggro/DPS buffs .
So it was dumbed down .
All you need is to pile on health , and you 'll do fine for almost all encounters .
The only time anything other than health matters anymore is when you are doing raids and you will run your healers OOM if you ca n't avoid the occasional blow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specialist Options [for tanks]:  WoW had that.
If you were up against a caster boss that did little physical damage, you'd want a druid.
Because they didn't have a shield or parry, they were given more armor and health.
And when the caster casts, you can't parry.
So the druid could take the most damage and live.
Wanted to have a off-tank pulling adds and holding them to the side while someone else works on the raid boss?
Gotta have a pally.
No other class could damage so many at the same time and hold them there when the healers were spamming super-big heals on the main tank getting wailed on by the boss.
And for a single boss that hits physical damage?
Warriors only.
That was the initial design.
Then there were mechanics that messed with it (pallys managed to get to and stay uncrushable for entire battles, something no warrior could do, making them better at taking physical damage, so that they were better than warriors for most encounters, if they could keep the aggro and not run out of mana).
And the "tanks are tanks" philosophies were introduced to level everything where druid's swipe was changed to hit an infinite number of enemies, and warriors got reflective damage and could AOE with shockwave and thunderclap to hold groups.
So pallys were no longer necessary to hold groups.
But then, pallys got mana buffs and survivability buffs and everyone got aggro/DPS buffs.
So it was dumbed down.
All you need is to pile on health, and you'll do fine for almost all encounters.
The only time anything other than health matters anymore is when you are doing raids and you will run your healers OOM if you can't avoid the occasional blow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486970</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>louisadkins</author>
	<datestamp>1261150620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer some of your points.</p><p>MMO Game mechanics do not always draw themselves out with 100\% visibility.  Your tank has threat on the boss, so the boss doesn't try to squish the mage.  This is because your tank has a number of abilities that, via game mechanics, allows him to hold the attention of the boss.  Your tank hit taunt?  Maybe this is (literally) verbally taunting the boss.. or maybe it's trying to kick him in the balls, thus enraging him.. or maybe magic is involved, in which case it Can Just Happen.</p><p>Crowd control has existed in numerous fights.  CC does not have to be polymorphing your target.  CC is a way of occupying your target to reduce their effectiveness.  In MMOs you see this as sleep, freeze, shapeshift, rooting, etc.  There are countless situations where someone has used the RL equivalent of CC.</p><p>Class balance is a constant issue in all MMOs that I have seen.  Every time the developers make a major change, they have to take in to account, maybe adjust, the rest of the classes to fit it in.  Sometimes you get a class that is OverPowered, in which case they get the Nerfbat (changed to balance.)</p><p>Regarding Damage versus Death.. most people want to not get 1-shot.  Say you hit someone with a 2-handed mace.  In real life, if you smacked them in the head with that weapon they would likely be dead.  Yeah, that sounds fun.  Until you get hit instead of being the person doing the hitting.  So, to make the game more interesting to play, and more fun, you get damage.  That 2-hander does more damage than a single-hand mace, but it's not gonna 1-shot someone unless they are notably weaker.</p><p>Class choice is totally personal preference.</p><p>Stealth usage in daylight to ambush someone is yet another thing that is a mechanics thing.  Yes, if you really were gonna stealth and ambush someone you would need a lot of time, information on location, prep work, etc.  You would have to set up carefully, and would probably mess it up unless you were really good at it.</p><p>Which is not what most gamers want.  Most people playing MMOs want a game where they can do things relatively quickly, and effectively.  They want to be able to push the envelope, but they don't want it to be easy to just slaughter everyone.. because they don't want to be slaughtered.  (not once they recall they would be open season, as well)  Since it's a game, they want to have fun, and they don't want it to take long amounts of time to do things.  If it took even 5 minutes to set up an ambush, for instance, no one would do it.  Also, since you're looking at an accelerated pace for everything, it's very unlikely that your target will still be available in 5 minutes, in an MMO.  If you were to try and collect 10 wolf tails in RL, you would have to spend hours or days doing so.  In an MMO this takes minutes, at most.  (assuming the drop rate has not been nerfed)</p><p>Dungeons are another personal thing.  I like a good dungeon run, but I know people who hate them.  I, on the other hand, rarely PvP.. but I know people who eat and breathe PvP Battlegrounds and Arenas.  Others just like the quests, or maybe they just use the MMO for RPing with other like-minded players.  An aside, some of the MMO companies out there have been working on making the dungeons more enjoyable, as well.  Blizzard's current 5man model seems to be based around being able to walk out the end of the dungeon within one hour, assuming you don't have major problems along the way.  (Usually within 45 minutes, actually)</p><p>In the end, it's a game.  A notable portion of the game is based on life, on history.. but only based.  Play what games you enjoy, and have fun.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer some of your points.MMO Game mechanics do not always draw themselves out with 100 \ % visibility .
Your tank has threat on the boss , so the boss does n't try to squish the mage .
This is because your tank has a number of abilities that , via game mechanics , allows him to hold the attention of the boss .
Your tank hit taunt ?
Maybe this is ( literally ) verbally taunting the boss.. or maybe it 's trying to kick him in the balls , thus enraging him.. or maybe magic is involved , in which case it Can Just Happen.Crowd control has existed in numerous fights .
CC does not have to be polymorphing your target .
CC is a way of occupying your target to reduce their effectiveness .
In MMOs you see this as sleep , freeze , shapeshift , rooting , etc .
There are countless situations where someone has used the RL equivalent of CC.Class balance is a constant issue in all MMOs that I have seen .
Every time the developers make a major change , they have to take in to account , maybe adjust , the rest of the classes to fit it in .
Sometimes you get a class that is OverPowered , in which case they get the Nerfbat ( changed to balance .
) Regarding Damage versus Death.. most people want to not get 1-shot .
Say you hit someone with a 2-handed mace .
In real life , if you smacked them in the head with that weapon they would likely be dead .
Yeah , that sounds fun .
Until you get hit instead of being the person doing the hitting .
So , to make the game more interesting to play , and more fun , you get damage .
That 2-hander does more damage than a single-hand mace , but it 's not gon na 1-shot someone unless they are notably weaker.Class choice is totally personal preference.Stealth usage in daylight to ambush someone is yet another thing that is a mechanics thing .
Yes , if you really were gon na stealth and ambush someone you would need a lot of time , information on location , prep work , etc .
You would have to set up carefully , and would probably mess it up unless you were really good at it.Which is not what most gamers want .
Most people playing MMOs want a game where they can do things relatively quickly , and effectively .
They want to be able to push the envelope , but they do n't want it to be easy to just slaughter everyone.. because they do n't want to be slaughtered .
( not once they recall they would be open season , as well ) Since it 's a game , they want to have fun , and they do n't want it to take long amounts of time to do things .
If it took even 5 minutes to set up an ambush , for instance , no one would do it .
Also , since you 're looking at an accelerated pace for everything , it 's very unlikely that your target will still be available in 5 minutes , in an MMO .
If you were to try and collect 10 wolf tails in RL , you would have to spend hours or days doing so .
In an MMO this takes minutes , at most .
( assuming the drop rate has not been nerfed ) Dungeons are another personal thing .
I like a good dungeon run , but I know people who hate them .
I , on the other hand , rarely PvP.. but I know people who eat and breathe PvP Battlegrounds and Arenas .
Others just like the quests , or maybe they just use the MMO for RPing with other like-minded players .
An aside , some of the MMO companies out there have been working on making the dungeons more enjoyable , as well .
Blizzard 's current 5man model seems to be based around being able to walk out the end of the dungeon within one hour , assuming you do n't have major problems along the way .
( Usually within 45 minutes , actually ) In the end , it 's a game .
A notable portion of the game is based on life , on history.. but only based .
Play what games you enjoy , and have fun .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer some of your points.MMO Game mechanics do not always draw themselves out with 100\% visibility.
Your tank has threat on the boss, so the boss doesn't try to squish the mage.
This is because your tank has a number of abilities that, via game mechanics, allows him to hold the attention of the boss.
Your tank hit taunt?
Maybe this is (literally) verbally taunting the boss.. or maybe it's trying to kick him in the balls, thus enraging him.. or maybe magic is involved, in which case it Can Just Happen.Crowd control has existed in numerous fights.
CC does not have to be polymorphing your target.
CC is a way of occupying your target to reduce their effectiveness.
In MMOs you see this as sleep, freeze, shapeshift, rooting, etc.
There are countless situations where someone has used the RL equivalent of CC.Class balance is a constant issue in all MMOs that I have seen.
Every time the developers make a major change, they have to take in to account, maybe adjust, the rest of the classes to fit it in.
Sometimes you get a class that is OverPowered, in which case they get the Nerfbat (changed to balance.
)Regarding Damage versus Death.. most people want to not get 1-shot.
Say you hit someone with a 2-handed mace.
In real life, if you smacked them in the head with that weapon they would likely be dead.
Yeah, that sounds fun.
Until you get hit instead of being the person doing the hitting.
So, to make the game more interesting to play, and more fun, you get damage.
That 2-hander does more damage than a single-hand mace, but it's not gonna 1-shot someone unless they are notably weaker.Class choice is totally personal preference.Stealth usage in daylight to ambush someone is yet another thing that is a mechanics thing.
Yes, if you really were gonna stealth and ambush someone you would need a lot of time, information on location, prep work, etc.
You would have to set up carefully, and would probably mess it up unless you were really good at it.Which is not what most gamers want.
Most people playing MMOs want a game where they can do things relatively quickly, and effectively.
They want to be able to push the envelope, but they don't want it to be easy to just slaughter everyone.. because they don't want to be slaughtered.
(not once they recall they would be open season, as well)  Since it's a game, they want to have fun, and they don't want it to take long amounts of time to do things.
If it took even 5 minutes to set up an ambush, for instance, no one would do it.
Also, since you're looking at an accelerated pace for everything, it's very unlikely that your target will still be available in 5 minutes, in an MMO.
If you were to try and collect 10 wolf tails in RL, you would have to spend hours or days doing so.
In an MMO this takes minutes, at most.
(assuming the drop rate has not been nerfed)Dungeons are another personal thing.
I like a good dungeon run, but I know people who hate them.
I, on the other hand, rarely PvP.. but I know people who eat and breathe PvP Battlegrounds and Arenas.
Others just like the quests, or maybe they just use the MMO for RPing with other like-minded players.
An aside, some of the MMO companies out there have been working on making the dungeons more enjoyable, as well.
Blizzard's current 5man model seems to be based around being able to walk out the end of the dungeon within one hour, assuming you don't have major problems along the way.
(Usually within 45 minutes, actually)In the end, it's a game.
A notable portion of the game is based on life, on history.. but only based.
Play what games you enjoy, and have fun.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488414</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261156680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UO and Darkfall come to mind on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UO and Darkfall come to mind on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UO and Darkfall come to mind on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488494</id>
	<title>Re:Pigeonholding</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1261157040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole\_principle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Pigeonhole</a> [wikipedia.org], not pigeonhol<b>d</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pigeonhole [ wikipedia.org ] , not pigeonhold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pigeonhole [wikipedia.org], not pigeonhold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489460</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261160760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i agree with the first half of your comments. However, your examples seem to be derivatives of the OP's proposal. I'm not sure if you intended that or not.</p><p>If you have a system based on 2 sides dealing, receiving, and avoiding damage and the first one to 0 loses, anything other that tank, healer, damage dealer is just obfuscation.</p><p>I like class-less, skill-based systems where limitations and potentials are only slightly influenced by race and increasing abilities depends directly on actions influenced by those abilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree with the first half of your comments .
However , your examples seem to be derivatives of the OP 's proposal .
I 'm not sure if you intended that or not.If you have a system based on 2 sides dealing , receiving , and avoiding damage and the first one to 0 loses , anything other that tank , healer , damage dealer is just obfuscation.I like class-less , skill-based systems where limitations and potentials are only slightly influenced by race and increasing abilities depends directly on actions influenced by those abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree with the first half of your comments.
However, your examples seem to be derivatives of the OP's proposal.
I'm not sure if you intended that or not.If you have a system based on 2 sides dealing, receiving, and avoiding damage and the first one to 0 loses, anything other that tank, healer, damage dealer is just obfuscation.I like class-less, skill-based systems where limitations and potentials are only slightly influenced by race and increasing abilities depends directly on actions influenced by those abilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500618</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261218420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example:<br>- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).</p></div></blockquote><p>City of Heroes/Villains has had something like that for years now.  UO never has had the Trinity.  (Niether does Puzzle Pirates.)<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.</p></div></blockquote><p>Combat in City of Heroes/Villains is 3D - you can fly during combat.  The advantages that accrue from flying/hovering in combat, while pinning enemies to the ground, are a widely taken advantage of by savvy players.</p><p>I think you, and TFA's author need to get out and play something other than WoW/EQ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example : - Add one more number to push into the negatives ( typically , armor and shield ) and you 'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number ( a shield healer of some sort ) a class that damages said number ( An EMP mage ) and a class that endures more damage to said number ( A shield...tank ) .City of Heroes/Villains has had something like that for years now .
UO never has had the Trinity .
( Niether does Puzzle Pirates .
)   - Add positional advantage ( complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons ) and you 'll have a class that restricts movement , one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.Combat in City of Heroes/Villains is 3D - you can fly during combat .
The advantages that accrue from flying/hovering in combat , while pinning enemies to the ground , are a widely taken advantage of by savvy players.I think you , and TFA 's author need to get out and play something other than WoW/EQ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example:- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).City of Heroes/Villains has had something like that for years now.
UO never has had the Trinity.
(Niether does Puzzle Pirates.
)
  - Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.Combat in City of Heroes/Villains is 3D - you can fly during combat.
The advantages that accrue from flying/hovering in combat, while pinning enemies to the ground, are a widely taken advantage of by savvy players.I think you, and TFA's author need to get out and play something other than WoW/EQ.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488116</id>
	<title>"Class" and "Level" have always been stupid</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1261155600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so back in college, I didn't play D&amp;D, I played Runequest. In that system, there was no such thing as a character "class", discrete experience levels, experience points, etc. The game mechanics were vastly superior to those of D&amp;D, but sadly, much of the D&amp;D influence carried into electronic dungeons, I guess because the programmers had learned on D&amp;D and just didn't know any better.</p><p>Of course, just like in real life, characters could specialize. You might be naturally better at magic or swordplay, but every fighter knows some basic battle magic, every magician is trained to use some kind of weapon. And one cool aspect.. you could train up in many different things: different tactics, stealth, climbing, etc. beyond your character's "natural" abilities in any of these things. You also gained experience by doing under stress... if you're successful in battle, you gradually get better at... you don't all of a sudden take a drastic jump in your abilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so back in college , I did n't play D&amp;D , I played Runequest .
In that system , there was no such thing as a character " class " , discrete experience levels , experience points , etc .
The game mechanics were vastly superior to those of D&amp;D , but sadly , much of the D&amp;D influence carried into electronic dungeons , I guess because the programmers had learned on D&amp;D and just did n't know any better.Of course , just like in real life , characters could specialize .
You might be naturally better at magic or swordplay , but every fighter knows some basic battle magic , every magician is trained to use some kind of weapon .
And one cool aspect.. you could train up in many different things : different tactics , stealth , climbing , etc .
beyond your character 's " natural " abilities in any of these things .
You also gained experience by doing under stress... if you 're successful in battle , you gradually get better at... you do n't all of a sudden take a drastic jump in your abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so back in college, I didn't play D&amp;D, I played Runequest.
In that system, there was no such thing as a character "class", discrete experience levels, experience points, etc.
The game mechanics were vastly superior to those of D&amp;D, but sadly, much of the D&amp;D influence carried into electronic dungeons, I guess because the programmers had learned on D&amp;D and just didn't know any better.Of course, just like in real life, characters could specialize.
You might be naturally better at magic or swordplay, but every fighter knows some basic battle magic, every magician is trained to use some kind of weapon.
And one cool aspect.. you could train up in many different things: different tactics, stealth, climbing, etc.
beyond your character's "natural" abilities in any of these things.
You also gained experience by doing under stress... if you're successful in battle, you gradually get better at... you don't all of a sudden take a drastic jump in your abilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485932</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except, of course, for Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , of course , for Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, of course, for Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487128</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1261151520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big game publishers can't risk change and hobbyists can't quit their day jobs so expect any progress to be very slow. On the bright side, this should mean you haven't had to buy any new RPGs in the last five years or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big game publishers ca n't risk change and hobbyists ca n't quit their day jobs so expect any progress to be very slow .
On the bright side , this should mean you have n't had to buy any new RPGs in the last five years or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big game publishers can't risk change and hobbyists can't quit their day jobs so expect any progress to be very slow.
On the bright side, this should mean you haven't had to buy any new RPGs in the last five years or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488582</id>
	<title>AoE and AE</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1261157400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people continue to describe spells as AoE spells?  AoE describes the area that the spell effects, not the spell itself.  The spell is an AE spell.  It always has been.  The idiots that use AoE to describe the spell are simply wrong, plain and simple.</p><p>The spell is an AREA EFFECT spell.  Saying an "Area Of Effect" spell is nonsense.  An AE spell has an AoE.  It's impossible to have an AoE spell.</p><p>This also applies to munitions, since that's a prior source of the term AE and AoE, predating computer gaming by just a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people continue to describe spells as AoE spells ?
AoE describes the area that the spell effects , not the spell itself .
The spell is an AE spell .
It always has been .
The idiots that use AoE to describe the spell are simply wrong , plain and simple.The spell is an AREA EFFECT spell .
Saying an " Area Of Effect " spell is nonsense .
An AE spell has an AoE .
It 's impossible to have an AoE spell.This also applies to munitions , since that 's a prior source of the term AE and AoE , predating computer gaming by just a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people continue to describe spells as AoE spells?
AoE describes the area that the spell effects, not the spell itself.
The spell is an AE spell.
It always has been.
The idiots that use AoE to describe the spell are simply wrong, plain and simple.The spell is an AREA EFFECT spell.
Saying an "Area Of Effect" spell is nonsense.
An AE spell has an AoE.
It's impossible to have an AoE spell.This also applies to munitions, since that's a prior source of the term AE and AoE, predating computer gaming by just a little.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488208</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261155900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They make some kind of off assumptions as well:</p><p>"The trinity does not make sense in some settings. Why would a game set in space with ships have a Tank or Healer role for the ships? What about a realistic modern infantry warfare? You can make it work, but this can hurt the willing suspension of disbelief. The trinity of core classes does not make sense in many settings outside of fantasy. "</p><p>If we look at scifi space combat (because it's our only reference) you almost always see a large "mother ship"(TANK) with smaller fighters (DPS) and some type of docking station usually on the mother ship (heals)</p><p>Or</p><p>how can you say there are no "tanks" or "medics" in modern infantry warfare?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They make some kind of off assumptions as well : " The trinity does not make sense in some settings .
Why would a game set in space with ships have a Tank or Healer role for the ships ?
What about a realistic modern infantry warfare ?
You can make it work , but this can hurt the willing suspension of disbelief .
The trinity of core classes does not make sense in many settings outside of fantasy .
" If we look at scifi space combat ( because it 's our only reference ) you almost always see a large " mother ship " ( TANK ) with smaller fighters ( DPS ) and some type of docking station usually on the mother ship ( heals ) Orhow can you say there are no " tanks " or " medics " in modern infantry warfare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They make some kind of off assumptions as well:"The trinity does not make sense in some settings.
Why would a game set in space with ships have a Tank or Healer role for the ships?
What about a realistic modern infantry warfare?
You can make it work, but this can hurt the willing suspension of disbelief.
The trinity of core classes does not make sense in many settings outside of fantasy.
"If we look at scifi space combat (because it's our only reference) you almost always see a large "mother ship"(TANK) with smaller fighters (DPS) and some type of docking station usually on the mother ship (heals)Orhow can you say there are no "tanks" or "medics" in modern infantry warfare?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772</id>
	<title>So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1261143960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a ridiculous "skill", anyway, and unbalances game play.</p><p>America's Army made this work pretty well.  They have a "medic" specialty, and while his primary job is still that of a soldier, the medic's secondary function is to stop a "yellow" wound from becoming "red", and a "red" wound from becoming fatal.  But both the casualty and the medic have to stand still for the duration of the bandaging process, and unless you're out of sight you're likely to get shot.</p><p>And nobody in A.A. is a tank.  Getting hit repeatedly means getting dead faster.</p><p>For a better swords and sorcery system, maybe they should move to a system based on shields, cavalry, infantry, and artillery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a ridiculous " skill " , anyway , and unbalances game play.America 's Army made this work pretty well .
They have a " medic " specialty , and while his primary job is still that of a soldier , the medic 's secondary function is to stop a " yellow " wound from becoming " red " , and a " red " wound from becoming fatal .
But both the casualty and the medic have to stand still for the duration of the bandaging process , and unless you 're out of sight you 're likely to get shot.And nobody in A.A. is a tank .
Getting hit repeatedly means getting dead faster.For a better swords and sorcery system , maybe they should move to a system based on shields , cavalry , infantry , and artillery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a ridiculous "skill", anyway, and unbalances game play.America's Army made this work pretty well.
They have a "medic" specialty, and while his primary job is still that of a soldier, the medic's secondary function is to stop a "yellow" wound from becoming "red", and a "red" wound from becoming fatal.
But both the casualty and the medic have to stand still for the duration of the bandaging process, and unless you're out of sight you're likely to get shot.And nobody in A.A. is a tank.
Getting hit repeatedly means getting dead faster.For a better swords and sorcery system, maybe they should move to a system based on shields, cavalry, infantry, and artillery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487970</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1261154940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've just explained why Tank/Healer/DPS is such lazy game design.  Any system with a one-dimensional focus on Hit Points is going to rapidly devolve into Progress Quest and the only decisions for the player are trading off between those three roles.</p><p>A system with more than one axis of progress could have roles that are "Tank" along one axis, "Healer" along another, and "DPS" along a third.  Even with 3 axes you get (uh, one sec, doing math...) 9 distinct composite roles.  The point would be to make the game more interesting (more player decisions) and make the characters more closely resemble heroic archetypes from fiction.</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've just explained why Tank/Healer/DPS is such lazy game design .
Any system with a one-dimensional focus on Hit Points is going to rapidly devolve into Progress Quest and the only decisions for the player are trading off between those three roles.A system with more than one axis of progress could have roles that are " Tank " along one axis , " Healer " along another , and " DPS " along a third .
Even with 3 axes you get ( uh , one sec , doing math... ) 9 distinct composite roles .
The point would be to make the game more interesting ( more player decisions ) and make the characters more closely resemble heroic archetypes from fiction .
  -- 77IM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've just explained why Tank/Healer/DPS is such lazy game design.
Any system with a one-dimensional focus on Hit Points is going to rapidly devolve into Progress Quest and the only decisions for the player are trading off between those three roles.A system with more than one axis of progress could have roles that are "Tank" along one axis, "Healer" along another, and "DPS" along a third.
Even with 3 axes you get (uh, one sec, doing math...) 9 distinct composite roles.
The point would be to make the game more interesting (more player decisions) and make the characters more closely resemble heroic archetypes from fiction.
  -- 77IM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486422</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1261147980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people commenting on the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard thing, but I'm surprised nobody mentioned Luke-Vader-Emperor.</p><p>Luke beats Vader.</p><p>Emperor beats Luke.</p><p>Vader beats Emperor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people commenting on the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard thing , but I 'm surprised nobody mentioned Luke-Vader-Emperor.Luke beats Vader.Emperor beats Luke.Vader beats Emperor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people commenting on the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard thing, but I'm surprised nobody mentioned Luke-Vader-Emperor.Luke beats Vader.Emperor beats Luke.Vader beats Emperor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485702</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1261143360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that mages are the superior class, so this article is invalid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that mages are the superior class , so this article is invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that mages are the superior class, so this article is invalid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487436</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261152900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with all this.  And what you've spoken of was tried in Tabula Rasa: There were eight classes, but none were clear tanks or healers. (DPS classes will exist so long as damage is scored in points over time; they don't need other classes to define them.)  And you know what one of the most frequent complaints was?  "Where's the tank?  Where's the healer?  What am I supposed to do?!".  (Then it got worse when they increased character HP way over Armor, and then made HP dependent on one attribute, so people maxed out Body else they died a lot.  And then there was the fact that the unarmored "native" life forms were really hard to kill, and regeneration was generally so high that healers were bunk anyway.  I'm not saying the lack of an obvious trinity was the only problem TR had.)</p><p>What I never see people suggest, because it's "too complicated" (I cast 1/2 level spell of Summon Waaahmbulance):</p><ul> <li> <b>Location-based damage.</b>  You're not a bucket of hit points; you're several.  Each arm, leg, head, torso, etc. has its own set of hit points.  Multi-legged creatures get tricky (read: challenging to players). Armor only protects the parts of the body that they cover.  And being reduced to 0 HP on a body part means you lose its use; you fall down, dragging yourself around, or you can't use the weapon in that hand, or whatever. This enables marksmanship: directing damage to certain target body parts, which could make a raid that much more interesting.  (Do I attack the giant scorpion's legs, pincers, or tail?)</li><li> <b>Degradation due to damage.</b> As damage is scored, the damaged mob loses effectiveness.  To-hit drops, defense drops, damage decreases, whatever.  I mean, seriously, if I get a surprise attack off that doesn't outright kill the mobs, why do they get to alpha me at full strength for free?  This makes armor and skill selection more challenging.  </li></ul><p>I grew up playing Star Fleet Battles, which has a very detailed set of combat and damage mechanics.  It's rather infamous for them, really.  But it's still nothing that wouldn't be difficult to adapt to computer RPGs.  Even Battletech-level mechanics would be an improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with all this .
And what you 've spoken of was tried in Tabula Rasa : There were eight classes , but none were clear tanks or healers .
( DPS classes will exist so long as damage is scored in points over time ; they do n't need other classes to define them .
) And you know what one of the most frequent complaints was ?
" Where 's the tank ?
Where 's the healer ?
What am I supposed to do ? ! " .
( Then it got worse when they increased character HP way over Armor , and then made HP dependent on one attribute , so people maxed out Body else they died a lot .
And then there was the fact that the unarmored " native " life forms were really hard to kill , and regeneration was generally so high that healers were bunk anyway .
I 'm not saying the lack of an obvious trinity was the only problem TR had .
) What I never see people suggest , because it 's " too complicated " ( I cast 1/2 level spell of Summon Waaahmbulance ) : Location-based damage .
You 're not a bucket of hit points ; you 're several .
Each arm , leg , head , torso , etc .
has its own set of hit points .
Multi-legged creatures get tricky ( read : challenging to players ) .
Armor only protects the parts of the body that they cover .
And being reduced to 0 HP on a body part means you lose its use ; you fall down , dragging yourself around , or you ca n't use the weapon in that hand , or whatever .
This enables marksmanship : directing damage to certain target body parts , which could make a raid that much more interesting .
( Do I attack the giant scorpion 's legs , pincers , or tail ?
) Degradation due to damage .
As damage is scored , the damaged mob loses effectiveness .
To-hit drops , defense drops , damage decreases , whatever .
I mean , seriously , if I get a surprise attack off that does n't outright kill the mobs , why do they get to alpha me at full strength for free ?
This makes armor and skill selection more challenging .
I grew up playing Star Fleet Battles , which has a very detailed set of combat and damage mechanics .
It 's rather infamous for them , really .
But it 's still nothing that would n't be difficult to adapt to computer RPGs .
Even Battletech-level mechanics would be an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with all this.
And what you've spoken of was tried in Tabula Rasa: There were eight classes, but none were clear tanks or healers.
(DPS classes will exist so long as damage is scored in points over time; they don't need other classes to define them.
)  And you know what one of the most frequent complaints was?
"Where's the tank?
Where's the healer?
What am I supposed to do?!".
(Then it got worse when they increased character HP way over Armor, and then made HP dependent on one attribute, so people maxed out Body else they died a lot.
And then there was the fact that the unarmored "native" life forms were really hard to kill, and regeneration was generally so high that healers were bunk anyway.
I'm not saying the lack of an obvious trinity was the only problem TR had.
)What I never see people suggest, because it's "too complicated" (I cast 1/2 level spell of Summon Waaahmbulance):  Location-based damage.
You're not a bucket of hit points; you're several.
Each arm, leg, head, torso, etc.
has its own set of hit points.
Multi-legged creatures get tricky (read: challenging to players).
Armor only protects the parts of the body that they cover.
And being reduced to 0 HP on a body part means you lose its use; you fall down, dragging yourself around, or you can't use the weapon in that hand, or whatever.
This enables marksmanship: directing damage to certain target body parts, which could make a raid that much more interesting.
(Do I attack the giant scorpion's legs, pincers, or tail?
) Degradation due to damage.
As damage is scored, the damaged mob loses effectiveness.
To-hit drops, defense drops, damage decreases, whatever.
I mean, seriously, if I get a surprise attack off that doesn't outright kill the mobs, why do they get to alpha me at full strength for free?
This makes armor and skill selection more challenging.
I grew up playing Star Fleet Battles, which has a very detailed set of combat and damage mechanics.
It's rather infamous for them, really.
But it's still nothing that wouldn't be difficult to adapt to computer RPGs.
Even Battletech-level mechanics would be an improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486580</id>
	<title>Nash equilibrium</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1261148640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called a nash equilibrium, and what it means in a nutshell is that no one's single strategy can beat anyone else's provided the strategies are fixed (i.e. a fighter cannot take on the attributes of a Mage).<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash\_equilibrium" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash\_equilibrium</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called a nash equilibrium , and what it means in a nutshell is that no one 's single strategy can beat anyone else 's provided the strategies are fixed ( i.e .
a fighter can not take on the attributes of a Mage ) .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash \ _equilibrium [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called a nash equilibrium, and what it means in a nutshell is that no one's single strategy can beat anyone else's provided the strategies are fixed (i.e.
a fighter cannot take on the attributes of a Mage).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash\_equilibrium [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486886</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261150080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, a MMORPG that let you create a single character and wear various suits for various purposes would be damn cool.
I'm not sure if they keep it that way so you "need to buy more accounts to have different" chars (which i think is a minority of players) and they're missing the picture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , a MMORPG that let you create a single character and wear various suits for various purposes would be damn cool .
I 'm not sure if they keep it that way so you " need to buy more accounts to have different " chars ( which i think is a minority of players ) and they 're missing the picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, a MMORPG that let you create a single character and wear various suits for various purposes would be damn cool.
I'm not sure if they keep it that way so you "need to buy more accounts to have different" chars (which i think is a minority of players) and they're missing the picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485882</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terran, Zerg, Protoss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terran , Zerg , Protoss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terran, Zerg, Protoss</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487352</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>toleraen</author>
	<datestamp>1261152480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you start with a system based on: Two sides dealing damage to an amount of health, the first to reach 0 health loses.</p></div><p>So isn't the system itself flawed then? How about designing MMORPGs that don't rely on running around killing stuff. In traditional RPGs there's so many more ways to deal with an adversary than zerg rushing, yet this hasn't really been used by too many MMORPGs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you start with a system based on : Two sides dealing damage to an amount of health , the first to reach 0 health loses.So is n't the system itself flawed then ?
How about designing MMORPGs that do n't rely on running around killing stuff .
In traditional RPGs there 's so many more ways to deal with an adversary than zerg rushing , yet this has n't really been used by too many MMORPGs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you start with a system based on: Two sides dealing damage to an amount of health, the first to reach 0 health loses.So isn't the system itself flawed then?
How about designing MMORPGs that don't rely on running around killing stuff.
In traditional RPGs there's so many more ways to deal with an adversary than zerg rushing, yet this hasn't really been used by too many MMORPGs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490594</id>
	<title>Re:The Trinity</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1261164300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is one of the reasons why I really enjoyed Planescape Torment (contemporary of baluder's Gate using the same engine).  You can play through the entire game with only I think three fights if you really want to.</p><p>I also always enjoyed MMO's like Ultima Online because there were so many non-combat things to do that were fun.  I knew several people that hardly ever did any combat game play and played for quite a while.  That game is also a good example of a balanced game that doesn't use the tank/healer/dds concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one of the reasons why I really enjoyed Planescape Torment ( contemporary of baluder 's Gate using the same engine ) .
You can play through the entire game with only I think three fights if you really want to.I also always enjoyed MMO 's like Ultima Online because there were so many non-combat things to do that were fun .
I knew several people that hardly ever did any combat game play and played for quite a while .
That game is also a good example of a balanced game that does n't use the tank/healer/dds concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one of the reasons why I really enjoyed Planescape Torment (contemporary of baluder's Gate using the same engine).
You can play through the entire game with only I think three fights if you really want to.I also always enjoyed MMO's like Ultima Online because there were so many non-combat things to do that were fun.
I knew several people that hardly ever did any combat game play and played for quite a while.
That game is also a good example of a balanced game that doesn't use the tank/healer/dds concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486350</id>
	<title>Tank/Healer/Damage Dealer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's quite inaccurate. Tank and Damage Dealer are the same close-range combat class, while ranged combat is missing from the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's quite inaccurate .
Tank and Damage Dealer are the same close-range combat class , while ranged combat is missing from the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's quite inaccurate.
Tank and Damage Dealer are the same close-range combat class, while ranged combat is missing from the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fighter, Mage, Archer</p></div><p>Cleric, Rogue, Warlock!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Human, Dwarf, Elf</p></div><p>Halfling, Ogre, Thri Kreen!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Fire, Water, Air</p></div><p>Earth? For God's sake how could you miss Earth?</p><p>And you see what all this proves, right?</p><p>Just by watching it you reach the conclusion that the real game is Rock, Paper, Scisors, Lizard and Spock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fighter , Mage , ArcherCleric , Rogue , Warlock ! Human , Dwarf , ElfHalfling , Ogre , Thri Kreen ! Fire , Water , AirEarth ?
For God 's sake how could you miss Earth ? And you see what all this proves , right ? Just by watching it you reach the conclusion that the real game is Rock , Paper , Scisors , Lizard and Spock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fighter, Mage, ArcherCleric, Rogue, Warlock!Human, Dwarf, ElfHalfling, Ogre, Thri Kreen!Fire, Water, AirEarth?
For God's sake how could you miss Earth?And you see what all this proves, right?Just by watching it you reach the conclusion that the real game is Rock, Paper, Scisors, Lizard and Spock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488050</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Xibby</author>
	<datestamp>1261155300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock.<br>Scissors.<br>Paper.<br>Lizard.<br>Spock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock.Scissors.Paper.Lizard.Spock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock.Scissors.Paper.Lizard.Spock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485970</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261145640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a reason why this simple game is still around after possibly a few hundred years.</p></div></blockquote><p>I know WoW looks a little old and tired, but I don't think it's been around quite <i>that</i> long.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason why this simple game is still around after possibly a few hundred years.I know WoW looks a little old and tired , but I do n't think it 's been around quite that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason why this simple game is still around after possibly a few hundred years.I know WoW looks a little old and tired, but I don't think it's been around quite that long.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486642</id>
	<title>teamwork</title>
	<author>bluewolfcub</author>
	<datestamp>1261149000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how making everyone more independent in an mmo by broadening their roles would affect playing together.<br>
Can you imagine doing an instance where everyone feels like doing their own thing, pulling left and right, because they can handle it...?
<br>It's also useful to specialise one particular area instead of being a useless jack of all trades. Maybe you could do that by what TFA describes, but if everyone ended up focusing on one area anyway what's the point...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how making everyone more independent in an mmo by broadening their roles would affect playing together .
Can you imagine doing an instance where everyone feels like doing their own thing , pulling left and right , because they can handle it... ?
It 's also useful to specialise one particular area instead of being a useless jack of all trades .
Maybe you could do that by what TFA describes , but if everyone ended up focusing on one area anyway what 's the point... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how making everyone more independent in an mmo by broadening their roles would affect playing together.
Can you imagine doing an instance where everyone feels like doing their own thing, pulling left and right, because they can handle it...?
It's also useful to specialise one particular area instead of being a useless jack of all trades.
Maybe you could do that by what TFA describes, but if everyone ended up focusing on one area anyway what's the point...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485846</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261144740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there are mmo's without classes -- they just aren't as popular as ones with classes.</p><p>I think people like being able to look at a toon and immediately know the sort of role they are set up to perform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there are mmo 's without classes -- they just are n't as popular as ones with classes.I think people like being able to look at a toon and immediately know the sort of role they are set up to perform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there are mmo's without classes -- they just aren't as popular as ones with classes.I think people like being able to look at a toon and immediately know the sort of role they are set up to perform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486666</id>
	<title>Bards</title>
	<author>MrDoh!</author>
	<datestamp>1261149060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you have to have the holy 2.5'inity in one toon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you have to have the holy 2.5'inity in one toon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you have to have the holy 2.5'inity in one toon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30494078</id>
	<title>Re:Pigeonholding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261135320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, EVE Online then?</p><p>Specifically, EVE doesn't have any classes at all, in effect. All "specialty" is dealt with by different equipment- some ships are fast, some tough, some have lots of turrets, some have lots of utility slots, some have bonuses in this and that, etc. The leveling system, as it is, is used to ensure players only unlock usable equipment at a certain rate and in a certain order, and money (coupled with non-recoverable losses after death) acts as a limiting factor in exactly what you can have in your armory at any given point. Other than that, players can do what they like.</p><p>It works well, and was probably no more difficult to code and balance than having fixed classes- all the potential "options" are the same, just open to all players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , EVE Online then ? Specifically , EVE does n't have any classes at all , in effect .
All " specialty " is dealt with by different equipment- some ships are fast , some tough , some have lots of turrets , some have lots of utility slots , some have bonuses in this and that , etc .
The leveling system , as it is , is used to ensure players only unlock usable equipment at a certain rate and in a certain order , and money ( coupled with non-recoverable losses after death ) acts as a limiting factor in exactly what you can have in your armory at any given point .
Other than that , players can do what they like.It works well , and was probably no more difficult to code and balance than having fixed classes- all the potential " options " are the same , just open to all players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, EVE Online then?Specifically, EVE doesn't have any classes at all, in effect.
All "specialty" is dealt with by different equipment- some ships are fast, some tough, some have lots of turrets, some have lots of utility slots, some have bonuses in this and that, etc.
The leveling system, as it is, is used to ensure players only unlock usable equipment at a certain rate and in a certain order, and money (coupled with non-recoverable losses after death) acts as a limiting factor in exactly what you can have in your armory at any given point.
Other than that, players can do what they like.It works well, and was probably no more difficult to code and balance than having fixed classes- all the potential "options" are the same, just open to all players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486926</id>
	<title>We need more Mesmers</title>
	<author>tbcpp</author>
	<datestamp>1261150380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my favorite classes is the Mesmer from Guild Wars... practically useless on their own, they have an awesome array of spells for invalidating the other side's strengths. For instance, their skills can cause a target to take damage whenever it attacks. They can move debuffs from friendlies and place them on enemies. And one of my favorite spells removes a hex from a target and allows you to re-cast that hex onto any other opponent.

This is what we need more of in RPGs...highly specialized classes that open up new tactics in combat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my favorite classes is the Mesmer from Guild Wars... practically useless on their own , they have an awesome array of spells for invalidating the other side 's strengths .
For instance , their skills can cause a target to take damage whenever it attacks .
They can move debuffs from friendlies and place them on enemies .
And one of my favorite spells removes a hex from a target and allows you to re-cast that hex onto any other opponent .
This is what we need more of in RPGs...highly specialized classes that open up new tactics in combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my favorite classes is the Mesmer from Guild Wars... practically useless on their own, they have an awesome array of spells for invalidating the other side's strengths.
For instance, their skills can cause a target to take damage whenever it attacks.
They can move debuffs from friendlies and place them on enemies.
And one of my favorite spells removes a hex from a target and allows you to re-cast that hex onto any other opponent.
This is what we need more of in RPGs...highly specialized classes that open up new tactics in combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488338</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1261156380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>Call them by any other name, but thats how you get an ideal game balance.</b>

</p><p>Maybe.  Let's take a look at a game that, while still holding to the trinity, tries to step away a bit.  City of Heroes.

</p><p>Tank: Just what it says.  However, it's possible to construct tanks in such a way that they don't need to be healed (note, this can be somewhat expensive, but it can be done) and thus, don't need outstanding damage output to eventually whittle down the enemies.  Sure, such things will allow the content to be overcome FASTER, but that's not the argument here.

</p><p>Blaster (Mage): Very high damage output, but essentially a glass cannon.  Go fast, go splat.  It's possible, while taking a small hit to total damage output, to increase defenses enough that you're rarely hit.  Thus, you can nuke the enemies before they kill you and aren't sitting there going "I need a h3al0r!" while still drawing and managing your own aggro.

</p><p>Defender (Priest): While this AT is notable for it's healing, healing consists of ONE power out of a set of 24.  The rest are attacks, defenses/resists, and a long list of self and team BUFFS and enemy DEBUFFS.  It's possible to increase your defenses enough that your heal and buffs will outstrip incoming damage long enough for the AT's "anemic" damage, combined with powerful enemy-weakening debuffs bring the mobs to their knees.

</p><p>It's entirely possible to solo most of the content in the game solo (save zone raids and certain ArchVillains (high-end super-bosses) whose powers hit points of weakness in your power set or build.

</p><p>The trinity can make gaming <i>EASIER</i>, but it's NOT required.  In CoH, 8-man teams of all the same AT can go just as fast as 8-man teams mixed to include the trinity.

</p><p>Additionally, to further chuck wood on the pyre that is this misconception, CoH allows you multiple builds on the same toon.  So you can have a blaster built for teaming that forgoes much of it's defenses for raw damage output and recharge, while another build is geared towards soloing and survivability, or PVP with the peculiar mix of powers that will keep it alive in there.  Need to have a different performance profile?  Hit a trainer and flip to another one.

</p><p>For anyone insisting that you NEED the trinity, I insist the following.

</p><p> <b>LEARN TO PLAY</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call them by any other name , but thats how you get an ideal game balance .
Maybe. Let 's take a look at a game that , while still holding to the trinity , tries to step away a bit .
City of Heroes .
Tank : Just what it says .
However , it 's possible to construct tanks in such a way that they do n't need to be healed ( note , this can be somewhat expensive , but it can be done ) and thus , do n't need outstanding damage output to eventually whittle down the enemies .
Sure , such things will allow the content to be overcome FASTER , but that 's not the argument here .
Blaster ( Mage ) : Very high damage output , but essentially a glass cannon .
Go fast , go splat .
It 's possible , while taking a small hit to total damage output , to increase defenses enough that you 're rarely hit .
Thus , you can nuke the enemies before they kill you and are n't sitting there going " I need a h3al0r !
" while still drawing and managing your own aggro .
Defender ( Priest ) : While this AT is notable for it 's healing , healing consists of ONE power out of a set of 24 .
The rest are attacks , defenses/resists , and a long list of self and team BUFFS and enemy DEBUFFS .
It 's possible to increase your defenses enough that your heal and buffs will outstrip incoming damage long enough for the AT 's " anemic " damage , combined with powerful enemy-weakening debuffs bring the mobs to their knees .
It 's entirely possible to solo most of the content in the game solo ( save zone raids and certain ArchVillains ( high-end super-bosses ) whose powers hit points of weakness in your power set or build .
The trinity can make gaming EASIER , but it 's NOT required .
In CoH , 8-man teams of all the same AT can go just as fast as 8-man teams mixed to include the trinity .
Additionally , to further chuck wood on the pyre that is this misconception , CoH allows you multiple builds on the same toon .
So you can have a blaster built for teaming that forgoes much of it 's defenses for raw damage output and recharge , while another build is geared towards soloing and survivability , or PVP with the peculiar mix of powers that will keep it alive in there .
Need to have a different performance profile ?
Hit a trainer and flip to another one .
For anyone insisting that you NEED the trinity , I insist the following .
LEARN TO PLAY</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Call them by any other name, but thats how you get an ideal game balance.
Maybe.  Let's take a look at a game that, while still holding to the trinity, tries to step away a bit.
City of Heroes.
Tank: Just what it says.
However, it's possible to construct tanks in such a way that they don't need to be healed (note, this can be somewhat expensive, but it can be done) and thus, don't need outstanding damage output to eventually whittle down the enemies.
Sure, such things will allow the content to be overcome FASTER, but that's not the argument here.
Blaster (Mage): Very high damage output, but essentially a glass cannon.
Go fast, go splat.
It's possible, while taking a small hit to total damage output, to increase defenses enough that you're rarely hit.
Thus, you can nuke the enemies before they kill you and aren't sitting there going "I need a h3al0r!
" while still drawing and managing your own aggro.
Defender (Priest): While this AT is notable for it's healing, healing consists of ONE power out of a set of 24.
The rest are attacks, defenses/resists, and a long list of self and team BUFFS and enemy DEBUFFS.
It's possible to increase your defenses enough that your heal and buffs will outstrip incoming damage long enough for the AT's "anemic" damage, combined with powerful enemy-weakening debuffs bring the mobs to their knees.
It's entirely possible to solo most of the content in the game solo (save zone raids and certain ArchVillains (high-end super-bosses) whose powers hit points of weakness in your power set or build.
The trinity can make gaming EASIER, but it's NOT required.
In CoH, 8-man teams of all the same AT can go just as fast as 8-man teams mixed to include the trinity.
Additionally, to further chuck wood on the pyre that is this misconception, CoH allows you multiple builds on the same toon.
So you can have a blaster built for teaming that forgoes much of it's defenses for raw damage output and recharge, while another build is geared towards soloing and survivability, or PVP with the peculiar mix of powers that will keep it alive in there.
Need to have a different performance profile?
Hit a trainer and flip to another one.
For anyone insisting that you NEED the trinity, I insist the following.
LEARN TO PLAY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486552</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261148520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Paraphrasing someone's very famous words: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it."</p></div><p>Leaving research exclusively in the hands of engineers, we would have perfectly functioning oil lamps, but no electricity.<br>(Quote attributed to Albert Einstein.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paraphrasing someone 's very famous words : " If it ai n't bust , do n't fix it .
" Leaving research exclusively in the hands of engineers , we would have perfectly functioning oil lamps , but no electricity .
( Quote attributed to Albert Einstein .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paraphrasing someone's very famous words: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it.
"Leaving research exclusively in the hands of engineers, we would have perfectly functioning oil lamps, but no electricity.
(Quote attributed to Albert Einstein.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485638</id>
	<title>Help!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, this is like REALLY disgusting, but before you judge, hear me out!</p><p>Here's what happened: A few weeks ago, my crush Daniel invited me over to his house to hang out by the pool. It was the first time we'd ever been alone together! Everything was going okay, but after too many chips and dip, I had to go Number Two.</p><p>The problem was, after I did my business, the toilet wouldn't flush! I tried and tried to get everything to go down, but it just wouldn't work. And I REALLY didn't want to ask Daniel to help me so he could see my gross, disgusting turd.</p><p>So I did the unthinkable...</p><p>I used a HELLA amount of toilet paper and wrapped up my piece of poo with the intention of smuggling it out in my purse and then dumping it outside in the neighbor's yard.</p><p>But, as I was sneaking out, I slipped and fell on the patio and everything came flying out!</p><p>"EWWWWWWWWW!!!" screamed Daniel. "Do you always carry poop around in your purse?"</p><p>After that, let's just say the rest of the date stunk. And I haven't really talked to him since.</p><p>But, I mean, what choice did I have? What would YOU have done? Called for help? (He would have seen the poo anyway!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , this is like REALLY disgusting , but before you judge , hear me out ! Here 's what happened : A few weeks ago , my crush Daniel invited me over to his house to hang out by the pool .
It was the first time we 'd ever been alone together !
Everything was going okay , but after too many chips and dip , I had to go Number Two.The problem was , after I did my business , the toilet would n't flush !
I tried and tried to get everything to go down , but it just would n't work .
And I REALLY did n't want to ask Daniel to help me so he could see my gross , disgusting turd.So I did the unthinkable...I used a HELLA amount of toilet paper and wrapped up my piece of poo with the intention of smuggling it out in my purse and then dumping it outside in the neighbor 's yard.But , as I was sneaking out , I slipped and fell on the patio and everything came flying out ! " EWWWWWWWWW ! ! !
" screamed Daniel .
" Do you always carry poop around in your purse ?
" After that , let 's just say the rest of the date stunk .
And I have n't really talked to him since.But , I mean , what choice did I have ?
What would YOU have done ?
Called for help ?
( He would have seen the poo anyway !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, this is like REALLY disgusting, but before you judge, hear me out!Here's what happened: A few weeks ago, my crush Daniel invited me over to his house to hang out by the pool.
It was the first time we'd ever been alone together!
Everything was going okay, but after too many chips and dip, I had to go Number Two.The problem was, after I did my business, the toilet wouldn't flush!
I tried and tried to get everything to go down, but it just wouldn't work.
And I REALLY didn't want to ask Daniel to help me so he could see my gross, disgusting turd.So I did the unthinkable...I used a HELLA amount of toilet paper and wrapped up my piece of poo with the intention of smuggling it out in my purse and then dumping it outside in the neighbor's yard.But, as I was sneaking out, I slipped and fell on the patio and everything came flying out!"EWWWWWWWWW!!!
" screamed Daniel.
"Do you always carry poop around in your purse?
"After that, let's just say the rest of the date stunk.
And I haven't really talked to him since.But, I mean, what choice did I have?
What would YOU have done?
Called for help?
(He would have seen the poo anyway!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30495902</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1261149420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example:<br>- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).</p><p>- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.</p></div><p>It will never fly. Games have done that (Guild Wars, e.g.. #1 would be a mesmer and #2 would be assassin) and they are just something whined about constantly.</p><p>Though after 5 years, I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything MMO "communities" won't bitch about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example : - Add one more number to push into the negatives ( typically , armor and shield ) and you 'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number ( a shield healer of some sort ) a class that damages said number ( An EMP mage ) and a class that endures more damage to said number ( A shield...tank ) .- Add positional advantage ( complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons ) and you 'll have a class that restricts movement , one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.It will never fly .
Games have done that ( Guild Wars , e.g.. # 1 would be a mesmer and # 2 would be assassin ) and they are just something whined about constantly.Though after 5 years , I 'm beginning to wonder if there 's anything MMO " communities " wo n't bitch about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example:- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.It will never fly.
Games have done that (Guild Wars, e.g.. #1 would be a mesmer and #2 would be assassin) and they are just something whined about constantly.Though after 5 years, I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything MMO "communities" won't bitch about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490202</id>
	<title>Re:Tank/Healer/Damage Dealer</title>
	<author>painandgreed</author>
	<datestamp>1261163040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>That's quite inaccurate. Tank and Damage Dealer are the same close-range combat class, while ranged combat is missing from the list.</i> </p><p>Nope. A Rogue can DPS as melee, but can't tank as they don't really have the armor or hit points let alone the aggro gaining abilities. Likewise, my pet as a hunter can tank but doesn't do nearly as much damage as a Melee DPSer should. Sure, it does some damage, but not as much as when I run up and hit stuff in melee too. It does have the ability to hold aggro and absorb the damage, allowing me to do the DPS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's quite inaccurate .
Tank and Damage Dealer are the same close-range combat class , while ranged combat is missing from the list .
Nope. A Rogue can DPS as melee , but ca n't tank as they do n't really have the armor or hit points let alone the aggro gaining abilities .
Likewise , my pet as a hunter can tank but does n't do nearly as much damage as a Melee DPSer should .
Sure , it does some damage , but not as much as when I run up and hit stuff in melee too .
It does have the ability to hold aggro and absorb the damage , allowing me to do the DPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's quite inaccurate.
Tank and Damage Dealer are the same close-range combat class, while ranged combat is missing from the list.
Nope. A Rogue can DPS as melee, but can't tank as they don't really have the armor or hit points let alone the aggro gaining abilities.
Likewise, my pet as a hunter can tank but doesn't do nearly as much damage as a Melee DPSer should.
Sure, it does some damage, but not as much as when I run up and hit stuff in melee too.
It does have the ability to hold aggro and absorb the damage, allowing me to do the DPS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30496738</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1261160820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sounds like a good idea. Some intrigue and puzzle solving might be fun. Toss in a bit of design/build that doesn't become an obsession for a grinder as well.
<br> <br>
I played a lot of RPG before this whole *internet thing* came along. My favorite system was Rolemaster (http://www.ironcrown.com/index.php?page=igames/IntroRMC) one of my favorite things about that game was that all classes could buy all skills but at different costs.  So a Wizard could buy Armour skills but it was crazy expensive.  and so on with the other classes. There was also a non-profession profession with all skill costs at the baseline.  My most diverse and character rich characters where always non-professions.
<br> <br>
And why don't they have the missing fourth class? Doesn't anyone like to sneak? Isn't there a place for stealthy thief?  Or I guess that would fall into the (avoid getting to zero category)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like a good idea .
Some intrigue and puzzle solving might be fun .
Toss in a bit of design/build that does n't become an obsession for a grinder as well .
I played a lot of RPG before this whole * internet thing * came along .
My favorite system was Rolemaster ( http : //www.ironcrown.com/index.php ? page = igames/IntroRMC ) one of my favorite things about that game was that all classes could buy all skills but at different costs .
So a Wizard could buy Armour skills but it was crazy expensive .
and so on with the other classes .
There was also a non-profession profession with all skill costs at the baseline .
My most diverse and character rich characters where always non-professions .
And why do n't they have the missing fourth class ?
Does n't anyone like to sneak ?
Is n't there a place for stealthy thief ?
Or I guess that would fall into the ( avoid getting to zero category )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like a good idea.
Some intrigue and puzzle solving might be fun.
Toss in a bit of design/build that doesn't become an obsession for a grinder as well.
I played a lot of RPG before this whole *internet thing* came along.
My favorite system was Rolemaster (http://www.ironcrown.com/index.php?page=igames/IntroRMC) one of my favorite things about that game was that all classes could buy all skills but at different costs.
So a Wizard could buy Armour skills but it was crazy expensive.
and so on with the other classes.
There was also a non-profession profession with all skill costs at the baseline.
My most diverse and character rich characters where always non-professions.
And why don't they have the missing fourth class?
Doesn't anyone like to sneak?
Isn't there a place for stealthy thief?
Or I guess that would fall into the (avoid getting to zero category)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486494</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THANK YOU!</p><p>It's called "situational awareness" and as a gamer I find its the only true thing that distinguishes "hardcore" players from "casual" players.  Being someone who when they play a game wants to learn every facet of it and go to Spankstown USA, (population: Your Mother) I prefer playing with the "hardcore" players rather than the "casual" players.  It has nothing to do with people being 'twitchers' or playing all the time, just for the love of my sanity please OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES!</p><p>I just can't believe that a person playing a third person game where they can look in any direction their character isn't can run into guys they "didn't see".  It's maddening!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THANK YOU ! It 's called " situational awareness " and as a gamer I find its the only true thing that distinguishes " hardcore " players from " casual " players .
Being someone who when they play a game wants to learn every facet of it and go to Spankstown USA , ( population : Your Mother ) I prefer playing with the " hardcore " players rather than the " casual " players .
It has nothing to do with people being 'twitchers ' or playing all the time , just for the love of my sanity please OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES ! I just ca n't believe that a person playing a third person game where they can look in any direction their character is n't can run into guys they " did n't see " .
It 's maddening !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANK YOU!It's called "situational awareness" and as a gamer I find its the only true thing that distinguishes "hardcore" players from "casual" players.
Being someone who when they play a game wants to learn every facet of it and go to Spankstown USA, (population: Your Mother) I prefer playing with the "hardcore" players rather than the "casual" players.
It has nothing to do with people being 'twitchers' or playing all the time, just for the love of my sanity please OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES!I just can't believe that a person playing a third person game where they can look in any direction their character isn't can run into guys they "didn't see".
It's maddening!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486562</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>Jed\_8</author>
	<datestamp>1261148580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way to win is not to play?  I think I've heard that somewhere before...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to win is not to play ?
I think I 've heard that somewhere before.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to win is not to play?
I think I've heard that somewhere before...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492934</id>
	<title>Re:Pigeonholding</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1261129860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.</i> </p><p>Submitted for evidence, Champions Online.  The idea, give people the ability to create any archetypal character they want.  Great for casual players to go in and mess around as they wish, but the game has become "easy" as it's become quickly evident which powers from different sets benefit each other the most.  Whereas class-based games might have a few different classes with ways to do things their own, in CO, once one ability is marked as strong, then everybody has it.  Ask people how they feel about Swallowtail Cut in PvP, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game .
Submitted for evidence , Champions Online .
The idea , give people the ability to create any archetypal character they want .
Great for casual players to go in and mess around as they wish , but the game has become " easy " as it 's become quickly evident which powers from different sets benefit each other the most .
Whereas class-based games might have a few different classes with ways to do things their own , in CO , once one ability is marked as strong , then everybody has it .
Ask people how they feel about Swallowtail Cut in PvP , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.
Submitted for evidence, Champions Online.
The idea, give people the ability to create any archetypal character they want.
Great for casual players to go in and mess around as they wish, but the game has become "easy" as it's become quickly evident which powers from different sets benefit each other the most.
Whereas class-based games might have a few different classes with ways to do things their own, in CO, once one ability is marked as strong, then everybody has it.
Ask people how they feel about Swallowtail Cut in PvP, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487792</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1261154280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a little wrong, he's judging a fantasy game based on it's realism, which sounds almost as ridiculous, but if you think about it, he has a point. Specifically with the dual wielding concept, if the REAL world has shown that it was not a really viable tactic, why should it be so effective in a video game, which bases alot of it's ground on real world items, such a plate armor, swords, and castles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a little wrong , he 's judging a fantasy game based on it 's realism , which sounds almost as ridiculous , but if you think about it , he has a point .
Specifically with the dual wielding concept , if the REAL world has shown that it was not a really viable tactic , why should it be so effective in a video game , which bases alot of it 's ground on real world items , such a plate armor , swords , and castles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a little wrong, he's judging a fantasy game based on it's realism, which sounds almost as ridiculous, but if you think about it, he has a point.
Specifically with the dual wielding concept, if the REAL world has shown that it was not a really viable tactic, why should it be so effective in a video game, which bases alot of it's ground on real world items, such a plate armor, swords, and castles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486842</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>RogueyWon</author>
	<datestamp>1261149900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WoW did this.</p><p>The Yogg-Saron fight (yes, it's heavily Cthulhu-mythos inspired), at the end of Ulduar, requires the raid members to monitor their own sanity level. If it hits 0, the player goes insane and attacks their allies (a condition that lasts until the end of the fight, even if the player is killed and resurrected).</p><p>Sanity is reduced by a number of factors, including semi-random attacks that Yogg-Saron can do on the raid, remaining in proximity to his brain for too long, or facing him while he howls during the final phase of the fight.</p><p>If players have the assistance of the Keeper Freya during the fight, she will provide sanctuary pools in the corners of the encounter room that players can run to if they need to regenerate sanity. In the fight's harder modes, Freya's assistance may not be there and players have to be very careful not to take unnecessary sanity damage.</p><p>It's not a brilliant implementation, I grant you. It would have been awesome if they could have made it so that as your sanity level gets lower, you start seeing odd visual effects, or your controls become less responsive. But it has, at least, been tried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WoW did this.The Yogg-Saron fight ( yes , it 's heavily Cthulhu-mythos inspired ) , at the end of Ulduar , requires the raid members to monitor their own sanity level .
If it hits 0 , the player goes insane and attacks their allies ( a condition that lasts until the end of the fight , even if the player is killed and resurrected ) .Sanity is reduced by a number of factors , including semi-random attacks that Yogg-Saron can do on the raid , remaining in proximity to his brain for too long , or facing him while he howls during the final phase of the fight.If players have the assistance of the Keeper Freya during the fight , she will provide sanctuary pools in the corners of the encounter room that players can run to if they need to regenerate sanity .
In the fight 's harder modes , Freya 's assistance may not be there and players have to be very careful not to take unnecessary sanity damage.It 's not a brilliant implementation , I grant you .
It would have been awesome if they could have made it so that as your sanity level gets lower , you start seeing odd visual effects , or your controls become less responsive .
But it has , at least , been tried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WoW did this.The Yogg-Saron fight (yes, it's heavily Cthulhu-mythos inspired), at the end of Ulduar, requires the raid members to monitor their own sanity level.
If it hits 0, the player goes insane and attacks their allies (a condition that lasts until the end of the fight, even if the player is killed and resurrected).Sanity is reduced by a number of factors, including semi-random attacks that Yogg-Saron can do on the raid, remaining in proximity to his brain for too long, or facing him while he howls during the final phase of the fight.If players have the assistance of the Keeper Freya during the fight, she will provide sanctuary pools in the corners of the encounter room that players can run to if they need to regenerate sanity.
In the fight's harder modes, Freya's assistance may not be there and players have to be very careful not to take unnecessary sanity damage.It's not a brilliant implementation, I grant you.
It would have been awesome if they could have made it so that as your sanity level gets lower, you start seeing odd visual effects, or your controls become less responsive.
But it has, at least, been tried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487572</id>
	<title>D&amp;D</title>
	<author>emkyooess</author>
	<datestamp>1261153440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they're talking about how it would be better to make MMOs more like D&amp;D 3rd edition classes were, mixed and could specialize however you want... after D&amp;D took the bland MMO rigid roles ideology and ran with it in crap-tastic, bad-selling 4th edition.  This comes from the "duh" department!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they 're talking about how it would be better to make MMOs more like D&amp;D 3rd edition classes were , mixed and could specialize however you want... after D&amp;D took the bland MMO rigid roles ideology and ran with it in crap-tastic , bad-selling 4th edition .
This comes from the " duh " department !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they're talking about how it would be better to make MMOs more like D&amp;D 3rd edition classes were, mixed and could specialize however you want... after D&amp;D took the bland MMO rigid roles ideology and ran with it in crap-tastic, bad-selling 4th edition.
This comes from the "duh" department!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486866</id>
	<title>Re:So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>irondonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261149960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, but there are tanks, right?  Mechanical tanks which are designed to absorb quite a bit of damage that would normally kill the clothies... I mean foot soldiers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but there are tanks , right ?
Mechanical tanks which are designed to absorb quite a bit of damage that would normally kill the clothies... I mean foot soldiers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but there are tanks, right?
Mechanical tanks which are designed to absorb quite a bit of damage that would normally kill the clothies... I mean foot soldiers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487746</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>mac1235</author>
	<datestamp>1261154040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sealclubber, Turtle Tamer.
Disco Bandit, Accordion Thief.
Pastamancer, Saucerer.

The eteranal golden triangle of Kingdom of Loathing!
www.kingdomofloathing.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sealclubber , Turtle Tamer .
Disco Bandit , Accordion Thief .
Pastamancer , Saucerer .
The eteranal golden triangle of Kingdom of Loathing !
www.kingdomofloathing.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sealclubber, Turtle Tamer.
Disco Bandit, Accordion Thief.
Pastamancer, Saucerer.
The eteranal golden triangle of Kingdom of Loathing!
www.kingdomofloathing.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30525764</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Fozzyuw</author>
	<datestamp>1261507620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't any mmorpg out there capable of offering a stats-based or skill-based character with no classification system?</p></div><p>As I typically do for topics about MMO's and designs, I point people to the excellent and very interesting (and still relavent) book: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Virtual-Worlds-Richard-Bartle" title="amazon.com">Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle</a> [amazon.com].  He goes over class vs skill based systems and what happens with them.  Their drawbacks and benefits and how, basically, it doesn't matter what you call it, you end up at the same thing anyways.  And the topic at hand isn't about classes or skills, it's about "roles".  Which is usually associated with classes such as Warrior/Paladin are tanks and Clerics/Druids are healers and skills like Shield and Plate are for tanking and Holy/Light/Nature magic are for healing, etc.  (however a game might label them).</p><p>Truth is, there are plenty of role-less RPG's out there.  They're called Action RPGs like Diablo or X-Men Legends/Ultimate Allinace on consoles.   If you take away roles, that's pretty much what you're left with to design a fun yet flavorful game where a "tank", "DPS" or "healer" isn't needed but character A doesn't feel entirely like character B.</p><p>The argument of whether to do classes or skills is moot because you end up with the same thing, but creating a fully skills based game takes a lot more time for developers to manage and balance.  Or you end up with a game that just because, every character has every ability and little flavor except how someone choose to play their character... at which point they will play them as the typical Healer, Tank or DPS role.</p><p>Yes you can talk about buffers/debuffers but those are simply rolled into the "healer" paradigm.</p><p>Games like WoW has been trying to hybridize all classes, even if they fill said roles.   Tanks are doing more damage and might have buff or debuff capabilities.  DPS have buff and debuff abilities or possibly even healing or tanking abilities (at least for a limited time or amount).</p><p>Either way, it's sort of one of those topics that come up every once in a while but always just goes in circles of "we need something different!" but no one can come up with anything that's truly different that's still fun.  They just find new ways of "hiding" the actual class design in some other system.  Or if they get ride of roles, they just create an Action RPG, which could just as much be an MMO as anything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't any mmorpg out there capable of offering a stats-based or skill-based character with no classification system ? As I typically do for topics about MMO 's and designs , I point people to the excellent and very interesting ( and still relavent ) book : Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle [ amazon.com ] .
He goes over class vs skill based systems and what happens with them .
Their drawbacks and benefits and how , basically , it does n't matter what you call it , you end up at the same thing anyways .
And the topic at hand is n't about classes or skills , it 's about " roles " .
Which is usually associated with classes such as Warrior/Paladin are tanks and Clerics/Druids are healers and skills like Shield and Plate are for tanking and Holy/Light/Nature magic are for healing , etc .
( however a game might label them ) .Truth is , there are plenty of role-less RPG 's out there .
They 're called Action RPGs like Diablo or X-Men Legends/Ultimate Allinace on consoles .
If you take away roles , that 's pretty much what you 're left with to design a fun yet flavorful game where a " tank " , " DPS " or " healer " is n't needed but character A does n't feel entirely like character B.The argument of whether to do classes or skills is moot because you end up with the same thing , but creating a fully skills based game takes a lot more time for developers to manage and balance .
Or you end up with a game that just because , every character has every ability and little flavor except how someone choose to play their character... at which point they will play them as the typical Healer , Tank or DPS role.Yes you can talk about buffers/debuffers but those are simply rolled into the " healer " paradigm.Games like WoW has been trying to hybridize all classes , even if they fill said roles .
Tanks are doing more damage and might have buff or debuff capabilities .
DPS have buff and debuff abilities or possibly even healing or tanking abilities ( at least for a limited time or amount ) .Either way , it 's sort of one of those topics that come up every once in a while but always just goes in circles of " we need something different !
" but no one can come up with anything that 's truly different that 's still fun .
They just find new ways of " hiding " the actual class design in some other system .
Or if they get ride of roles , they just create an Action RPG , which could just as much be an MMO as anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't any mmorpg out there capable of offering a stats-based or skill-based character with no classification system?As I typically do for topics about MMO's and designs, I point people to the excellent and very interesting (and still relavent) book: Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle [amazon.com].
He goes over class vs skill based systems and what happens with them.
Their drawbacks and benefits and how, basically, it doesn't matter what you call it, you end up at the same thing anyways.
And the topic at hand isn't about classes or skills, it's about "roles".
Which is usually associated with classes such as Warrior/Paladin are tanks and Clerics/Druids are healers and skills like Shield and Plate are for tanking and Holy/Light/Nature magic are for healing, etc.
(however a game might label them).Truth is, there are plenty of role-less RPG's out there.
They're called Action RPGs like Diablo or X-Men Legends/Ultimate Allinace on consoles.
If you take away roles, that's pretty much what you're left with to design a fun yet flavorful game where a "tank", "DPS" or "healer" isn't needed but character A doesn't feel entirely like character B.The argument of whether to do classes or skills is moot because you end up with the same thing, but creating a fully skills based game takes a lot more time for developers to manage and balance.
Or you end up with a game that just because, every character has every ability and little flavor except how someone choose to play their character... at which point they will play them as the typical Healer, Tank or DPS role.Yes you can talk about buffers/debuffers but those are simply rolled into the "healer" paradigm.Games like WoW has been trying to hybridize all classes, even if they fill said roles.
Tanks are doing more damage and might have buff or debuff capabilities.
DPS have buff and debuff abilities or possibly even healing or tanking abilities (at least for a limited time or amount).Either way, it's sort of one of those topics that come up every once in a while but always just goes in circles of "we need something different!
" but no one can come up with anything that's truly different that's still fun.
They just find new ways of "hiding" the actual class design in some other system.
Or if they get ride of roles, they just create an Action RPG, which could just as much be an MMO as anything else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488044</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1261155240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The system is way more complex than that and that's why more classes can be created without adding new numbers.<br> <br>For example, you forgot to account the party, from where you can create "General" or "Commander" classes.<br> <br>Or the game economy and market, where there's plenty of space for a "Merchant" class (combat design, I know, but most merchant classes are able to carry more loot and repair items).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system is way more complex than that and that 's why more classes can be created without adding new numbers .
For example , you forgot to account the party , from where you can create " General " or " Commander " classes .
Or the game economy and market , where there 's plenty of space for a " Merchant " class ( combat design , I know , but most merchant classes are able to carry more loot and repair items ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system is way more complex than that and that's why more classes can be created without adding new numbers.
For example, you forgot to account the party, from where you can create "General" or "Commander" classes.
Or the game economy and market, where there's plenty of space for a "Merchant" class (combat design, I know, but most merchant classes are able to carry more loot and repair items).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486876</id>
	<title>This is an artifact of the game design, not class</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1261150020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason things break down this way is because of the fundamental dynamics of the game, not specifically because of class design. The classes exist this way because the games are designed around gameplay the necessitates it. Even if you broke classes out of this mold, you'd still have the same basic objectives: kill something, don't die. Since "don't die" breaks down into "stay alive, keep your friends alive" and kill something is "do damage," you've got three clearly defined tasks. Even if you made all classes capable of doing anything, you've got the same objectives to do, and it's much easier to coordinate if you've got a specific role to perform than if you're just playing it by ear. Hence, even with flexible classes, you'd still have the same basic three roles.</p><p>The key is to change the fundamental design of the games to not depend on DPS, HP, and armor. Maybe make it dependent on tactical positioning or being outnumbered or whatever. I don't know, there's plenty of other directions you can go. Observe the MMOFPS: Planetside had healing, heavy armor, and damage-dealing, but it was not critical to have designated healers and tanks and so on because you were not in an environment where you benefitted from that kind of thing (and you can't tank a player-controlled opponent). EverQuest, FFXI, CoH, WoW, whatever MMORPG you care to mention, they all have the same fundamental gameplay, just with comparatively minor variations. Not that they're all particularly similar, they just all have a similar core gameplay concept.</p><p>The same gameplay scheme rewards the same tactics, whether your game is set on Azeroth or Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason things break down this way is because of the fundamental dynamics of the game , not specifically because of class design .
The classes exist this way because the games are designed around gameplay the necessitates it .
Even if you broke classes out of this mold , you 'd still have the same basic objectives : kill something , do n't die .
Since " do n't die " breaks down into " stay alive , keep your friends alive " and kill something is " do damage , " you 've got three clearly defined tasks .
Even if you made all classes capable of doing anything , you 've got the same objectives to do , and it 's much easier to coordinate if you 've got a specific role to perform than if you 're just playing it by ear .
Hence , even with flexible classes , you 'd still have the same basic three roles.The key is to change the fundamental design of the games to not depend on DPS , HP , and armor .
Maybe make it dependent on tactical positioning or being outnumbered or whatever .
I do n't know , there 's plenty of other directions you can go .
Observe the MMOFPS : Planetside had healing , heavy armor , and damage-dealing , but it was not critical to have designated healers and tanks and so on because you were not in an environment where you benefitted from that kind of thing ( and you ca n't tank a player-controlled opponent ) .
EverQuest , FFXI , CoH , WoW , whatever MMORPG you care to mention , they all have the same fundamental gameplay , just with comparatively minor variations .
Not that they 're all particularly similar , they just all have a similar core gameplay concept.The same gameplay scheme rewards the same tactics , whether your game is set on Azeroth or Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason things break down this way is because of the fundamental dynamics of the game, not specifically because of class design.
The classes exist this way because the games are designed around gameplay the necessitates it.
Even if you broke classes out of this mold, you'd still have the same basic objectives: kill something, don't die.
Since "don't die" breaks down into "stay alive, keep your friends alive" and kill something is "do damage," you've got three clearly defined tasks.
Even if you made all classes capable of doing anything, you've got the same objectives to do, and it's much easier to coordinate if you've got a specific role to perform than if you're just playing it by ear.
Hence, even with flexible classes, you'd still have the same basic three roles.The key is to change the fundamental design of the games to not depend on DPS, HP, and armor.
Maybe make it dependent on tactical positioning or being outnumbered or whatever.
I don't know, there's plenty of other directions you can go.
Observe the MMOFPS: Planetside had healing, heavy armor, and damage-dealing, but it was not critical to have designated healers and tanks and so on because you were not in an environment where you benefitted from that kind of thing (and you can't tank a player-controlled opponent).
EverQuest, FFXI, CoH, WoW, whatever MMORPG you care to mention, they all have the same fundamental gameplay, just with comparatively minor variations.
Not that they're all particularly similar, they just all have a similar core gameplay concept.The same gameplay scheme rewards the same tactics, whether your game is set on Azeroth or Earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488030</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You want to play a fantasy game that is realistic? That would be the worst game EVAR!</i></p><p>Bullshit. It'd be the coolest game ever.  Why do you think video games have been going in that direction ever since they were invented?</p><p>I want a WOW-like game where I can't carry 5 20-slot bags completely full of iron ore... because it's too fucking heavy and massive! Where I, as a magic user, can use plate armor if I want... with the disadvantage that spells glitch a lot because the armor gets in the way of the spell-casting motions.  I want a game where there are more than just a half-dozen building layouts, where carelessly casting a fire-spell in the middle of a forest starts a forest fire that threatens a nearby town, getting me thrown in jail.  Where unsheathing my sword in the pub gets the local police force called.  Where I can \_really\_ effect the environment- I can chop down trees in the forest, roll them into a stream bed, damming up the stream, pissing of the town down stream that relies on that water. Where I can snipe at a mob, walk away, come back, and the mob is still wounded (sapient mobs that can heal themselves excepted). I want a game where, when I talk to people in a town, they get pisse doff if I bother them too much, not just parrot the same lines over and over. I want quests where, if I have to 'find out' what happened in a town, I actually have to talk to various people and piece the story together, not just talk to the one dude with the flashing "!" over his head.</p><p>All these things would make the game more realistic. And I want them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to play a fantasy game that is realistic ?
That would be the worst game EVAR ! Bullshit .
It 'd be the coolest game ever .
Why do you think video games have been going in that direction ever since they were invented ? I want a WOW-like game where I ca n't carry 5 20-slot bags completely full of iron ore... because it 's too fucking heavy and massive !
Where I , as a magic user , can use plate armor if I want... with the disadvantage that spells glitch a lot because the armor gets in the way of the spell-casting motions .
I want a game where there are more than just a half-dozen building layouts , where carelessly casting a fire-spell in the middle of a forest starts a forest fire that threatens a nearby town , getting me thrown in jail .
Where unsheathing my sword in the pub gets the local police force called .
Where I can \ _really \ _ effect the environment- I can chop down trees in the forest , roll them into a stream bed , damming up the stream , pissing of the town down stream that relies on that water .
Where I can snipe at a mob , walk away , come back , and the mob is still wounded ( sapient mobs that can heal themselves excepted ) .
I want a game where , when I talk to people in a town , they get pisse doff if I bother them too much , not just parrot the same lines over and over .
I want quests where , if I have to 'find out ' what happened in a town , I actually have to talk to various people and piece the story together , not just talk to the one dude with the flashing " !
" over his head.All these things would make the game more realistic .
And I want them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to play a fantasy game that is realistic?
That would be the worst game EVAR!Bullshit.
It'd be the coolest game ever.
Why do you think video games have been going in that direction ever since they were invented?I want a WOW-like game where I can't carry 5 20-slot bags completely full of iron ore... because it's too fucking heavy and massive!
Where I, as a magic user, can use plate armor if I want... with the disadvantage that spells glitch a lot because the armor gets in the way of the spell-casting motions.
I want a game where there are more than just a half-dozen building layouts, where carelessly casting a fire-spell in the middle of a forest starts a forest fire that threatens a nearby town, getting me thrown in jail.
Where unsheathing my sword in the pub gets the local police force called.
Where I can \_really\_ effect the environment- I can chop down trees in the forest, roll them into a stream bed, damming up the stream, pissing of the town down stream that relies on that water.
Where I can snipe at a mob, walk away, come back, and the mob is still wounded (sapient mobs that can heal themselves excepted).
I want a game where, when I talk to people in a town, they get pisse doff if I bother them too much, not just parrot the same lines over and over.
I want quests where, if I have to 'find out' what happened in a town, I actually have to talk to various people and piece the story together, not just talk to the one dude with the flashing "!
" over his head.All these things would make the game more realistic.
And I want them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491568</id>
	<title>Re:The Trinity</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1261168140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While few and far between, I have played a few quests like you describe in both WoW and LOTRO. This is when playing a rogue/thief really feels fun. You <i>can</i> actually stealth pass an entire guard to recover the McGuffin and be rewarded with experience without killing anything. It's certainly not a core game mechanic as with Pen and Paper RPGs, but then there's also a fairly heavy emphasis on hack'n'slash in the P&amp;P RPGs I've played as well. Maybe because that's what's fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While few and far between , I have played a few quests like you describe in both WoW and LOTRO .
This is when playing a rogue/thief really feels fun .
You can actually stealth pass an entire guard to recover the McGuffin and be rewarded with experience without killing anything .
It 's certainly not a core game mechanic as with Pen and Paper RPGs , but then there 's also a fairly heavy emphasis on hack'n'slash in the P&amp;P RPGs I 've played as well .
Maybe because that 's what 's fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While few and far between, I have played a few quests like you describe in both WoW and LOTRO.
This is when playing a rogue/thief really feels fun.
You can actually stealth pass an entire guard to recover the McGuffin and be rewarded with experience without killing anything.
It's certainly not a core game mechanic as with Pen and Paper RPGs, but then there's also a fairly heavy emphasis on hack'n'slash in the P&amp;P RPGs I've played as well.
Maybe because that's what's fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486510</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>Scutter</author>
	<datestamp>1261148340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example:<br>- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).</i></p><p><i>- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.</i></p><p>Interesting.  You just described EVE Online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example : - Add one more number to push into the negatives ( typically , armor and shield ) and you 'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number ( a shield healer of some sort ) a class that damages said number ( An EMP mage ) and a class that endures more damage to said number ( A shield...tank ) .- Add positional advantage ( complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons ) and you 'll have a class that restricts movement , one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.Interesting .
You just described EVE Online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example:- Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).- Add positional advantage (complex to do in mmorpgs for lag reasons) and you'll have a class that restricts movement, one that gives positional advantage to teammates and one that uses more effectively positional advantage.Interesting.
You just described EVE Online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486590</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Lord Pillage</author>
	<datestamp>1261148700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fire, Water, Air...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Earth! Heart! GOOOOOOO PLANET!
"By your powers combined, I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...captain planet, he's a hero, gonna take polution down to zero...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire , Water , Air.. . Earth ! Heart !
GOOOOOOO PLANET !
" By your powers combined , I AM CAPTAIN PLANET !
" ...captain planet , he 's a hero , gon na take polution down to zero.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire, Water, Air...
Earth! Heart!
GOOOOOOO PLANET!
"By your powers combined, I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!
" ...captain planet, he's a hero, gonna take polution down to zero...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486270</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1261147320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>arch demons, strong and smart enough to marshal entire armies stupidly attacking some party member designated as 'tank', and getting its ass spanked. 'threat' my ass.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think it makes sense for the most part, you just see the consequences in-game and not what actually happens.</p><p>Eg, suppose you're going against a fighter and a wizard. You really want to get the wizard. But the wizard knows he's squishy and hides behind the fighter, and the fighter knows the wizard is squishy and gets right in your face. You could try to go around him, but the fighter is going to use the chance to stab you in the back if you try. So you don't. So the fighter provides a threat by just being there, and a reason not to try to attack somebody else.</p><p>It wouldn't work that way with an archer or a wizard as if they don't have their equipment ready they can't attack at a moment's notice.</p><p>Agree about that archers should be more effective, though.</p><blockquote><div><p>insanely powerful, stupid mage class. press a button, and freeze 10 enemies to sleep or something. spells 'ignore' armor. the 'crowd control' stupidity, which has never existed in any real battle situation,</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure it does exist, the crowd controller is the guy with the machinegun, or flamethrower. In medieval times, it'd be the guy who sets off some elaborate trap, like making a tree trunk roll down the battlefield.</p><p>Wizards would naturally fall into that role too. If you can magically set somebody on fire, it seems logical that the effect doesn't have to be limited to a single person. You can set an area on fire and make things very inconvenient for a group of people.</p><blockquote><div><p>no flexibility. you HAVE to have a tank, a healer, a controller and a damage dealer. the same old shit everywhere, every game. no variation. no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can do it, it just wouldn't work well. In a game you're in for a long time engagement. If your team is all guys with swords, at some point archers in the trees will snipe all of you with no effort. If all archers, fighters can ambush you. There's a reason why armies aren't all made of archers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>arch demons , strong and smart enough to marshal entire armies stupidly attacking some party member designated as 'tank ' , and getting its ass spanked .
'threat ' my ass.I think it makes sense for the most part , you just see the consequences in-game and not what actually happens.Eg , suppose you 're going against a fighter and a wizard .
You really want to get the wizard .
But the wizard knows he 's squishy and hides behind the fighter , and the fighter knows the wizard is squishy and gets right in your face .
You could try to go around him , but the fighter is going to use the chance to stab you in the back if you try .
So you do n't .
So the fighter provides a threat by just being there , and a reason not to try to attack somebody else.It would n't work that way with an archer or a wizard as if they do n't have their equipment ready they ca n't attack at a moment 's notice.Agree about that archers should be more effective , though.insanely powerful , stupid mage class .
press a button , and freeze 10 enemies to sleep or something .
spells 'ignore ' armor .
the 'crowd control ' stupidity , which has never existed in any real battle situation,Sure it does exist , the crowd controller is the guy with the machinegun , or flamethrower .
In medieval times , it 'd be the guy who sets off some elaborate trap , like making a tree trunk roll down the battlefield.Wizards would naturally fall into that role too .
If you can magically set somebody on fire , it seems logical that the effect does n't have to be limited to a single person .
You can set an area on fire and make things very inconvenient for a group of people.no flexibility .
you HAVE to have a tank , a healer , a controller and a damage dealer .
the same old shit everywhere , every game .
no variation .
no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad.You can do it , it just would n't work well .
In a game you 're in for a long time engagement .
If your team is all guys with swords , at some point archers in the trees will snipe all of you with no effort .
If all archers , fighters can ambush you .
There 's a reason why armies are n't all made of archers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arch demons, strong and smart enough to marshal entire armies stupidly attacking some party member designated as 'tank', and getting its ass spanked.
'threat' my ass.I think it makes sense for the most part, you just see the consequences in-game and not what actually happens.Eg, suppose you're going against a fighter and a wizard.
You really want to get the wizard.
But the wizard knows he's squishy and hides behind the fighter, and the fighter knows the wizard is squishy and gets right in your face.
You could try to go around him, but the fighter is going to use the chance to stab you in the back if you try.
So you don't.
So the fighter provides a threat by just being there, and a reason not to try to attack somebody else.It wouldn't work that way with an archer or a wizard as if they don't have their equipment ready they can't attack at a moment's notice.Agree about that archers should be more effective, though.insanely powerful, stupid mage class.
press a button, and freeze 10 enemies to sleep or something.
spells 'ignore' armor.
the 'crowd control' stupidity, which has never existed in any real battle situation,Sure it does exist, the crowd controller is the guy with the machinegun, or flamethrower.
In medieval times, it'd be the guy who sets off some elaborate trap, like making a tree trunk roll down the battlefield.Wizards would naturally fall into that role too.
If you can magically set somebody on fire, it seems logical that the effect doesn't have to be limited to a single person.
You can set an area on fire and make things very inconvenient for a group of people.no flexibility.
you HAVE to have a tank, a healer, a controller and a damage dealer.
the same old shit everywhere, every game.
no variation.
no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad.You can do it, it just wouldn't work well.
In a game you're in for a long time engagement.
If your team is all guys with swords, at some point archers in the trees will snipe all of you with no effort.
If all archers, fighters can ambush you.
There's a reason why armies aren't all made of archers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490198</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>slyrat</author>
	<datestamp>1261162980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually Planetside did this. You leveled up by getting points you could allocate towards equipment types. So if you wanted to change your loadout so that you could drive a med vehicle that day rather than a tank, go ahead. I think there was a lag of 8 hours or something like that before you could do it again. It meant being able to use one character to do anything you wanted. There also was no loot to speak of. What this leads to is a game much more focused on the multiplayer aspect of an mmo. PVP was everything. I still haven't seen anything like it, though that may be changing soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Planetside did this .
You leveled up by getting points you could allocate towards equipment types .
So if you wanted to change your loadout so that you could drive a med vehicle that day rather than a tank , go ahead .
I think there was a lag of 8 hours or something like that before you could do it again .
It meant being able to use one character to do anything you wanted .
There also was no loot to speak of .
What this leads to is a game much more focused on the multiplayer aspect of an mmo .
PVP was everything .
I still have n't seen anything like it , though that may be changing soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Planetside did this.
You leveled up by getting points you could allocate towards equipment types.
So if you wanted to change your loadout so that you could drive a med vehicle that day rather than a tank, go ahead.
I think there was a lag of 8 hours or something like that before you could do it again.
It meant being able to use one character to do anything you wanted.
There also was no loot to speak of.
What this leads to is a game much more focused on the multiplayer aspect of an mmo.
PVP was everything.
I still haven't seen anything like it, though that may be changing soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490670</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261164600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem might be that there are too few roles in the Trinity, and they are being nerfed into hybrids that can do them all to some extent.  Maybe we need more roles, not fewer, and if more cleverness is required it will lift the skill of the average player through practice.<br>The Sanity stat could be one component of  a spectrum that includes Patience (right now it only applies to a high dps with a weaker tank), Rhythm (building up resonance or dampening a cyclic effect with good timing), Distraction (confusing the mob with coordinated team behaviour), Balance (making sure that an array of DoTs are the right combination and don't cancel each other out), Attention (in WoW, it used to be a matter of pride for an AffLock to keep all DoTs up all the time but they forced a simplification on that and now no one wants a skilled AffLock if they can have a more powerful faceroller), Persistence (not sure any players would want this--they are too impatient to just gedderdun), Knowledge (mobs who can be defeated by alternative strategies depending on group composition), and other things like Crafting (build a disposable tank bot, fear generator, or the like that would need to be deployed correctly to be beneficial).  Nowhere have I seen the option for players to negotiate with the mobs, and except for a few quests, feed them, give them a bath, offer them a place on the team, or the like.  And why doesn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tickle reduce the boss's ability to cast?</p><p>If this is implemented, please give me credit.<br>- Bink</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem might be that there are too few roles in the Trinity , and they are being nerfed into hybrids that can do them all to some extent .
Maybe we need more roles , not fewer , and if more cleverness is required it will lift the skill of the average player through practice.The Sanity stat could be one component of a spectrum that includes Patience ( right now it only applies to a high dps with a weaker tank ) , Rhythm ( building up resonance or dampening a cyclic effect with good timing ) , Distraction ( confusing the mob with coordinated team behaviour ) , Balance ( making sure that an array of DoTs are the right combination and do n't cancel each other out ) , Attention ( in WoW , it used to be a matter of pride for an AffLock to keep all DoTs up all the time but they forced a simplification on that and now no one wants a skilled AffLock if they can have a more powerful faceroller ) , Persistence ( not sure any players would want this--they are too impatient to just gedderdun ) , Knowledge ( mobs who can be defeated by alternative strategies depending on group composition ) , and other things like Crafting ( build a disposable tank bot , fear generator , or the like that would need to be deployed correctly to be beneficial ) .
Nowhere have I seen the option for players to negotiate with the mobs , and except for a few quests , feed them , give them a bath , offer them a place on the team , or the like .
And why does n't /tickle reduce the boss 's ability to cast ? If this is implemented , please give me credit.- Bink</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem might be that there are too few roles in the Trinity, and they are being nerfed into hybrids that can do them all to some extent.
Maybe we need more roles, not fewer, and if more cleverness is required it will lift the skill of the average player through practice.The Sanity stat could be one component of  a spectrum that includes Patience (right now it only applies to a high dps with a weaker tank), Rhythm (building up resonance or dampening a cyclic effect with good timing), Distraction (confusing the mob with coordinated team behaviour), Balance (making sure that an array of DoTs are the right combination and don't cancel each other out), Attention (in WoW, it used to be a matter of pride for an AffLock to keep all DoTs up all the time but they forced a simplification on that and now no one wants a skilled AffLock if they can have a more powerful faceroller), Persistence (not sure any players would want this--they are too impatient to just gedderdun), Knowledge (mobs who can be defeated by alternative strategies depending on group composition), and other things like Crafting (build a disposable tank bot, fear generator, or the like that would need to be deployed correctly to be beneficial).
Nowhere have I seen the option for players to negotiate with the mobs, and except for a few quests, feed them, give them a bath, offer them a place on the team, or the like.
And why doesn't /tickle reduce the boss's ability to cast?If this is implemented, please give me credit.- Bink</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</id>
	<title>Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1261145160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i just finished dragon age origins. again there was the stereotypical class definitions and mechanic that made little sense. </p><p>a 'tank' which is horribly strong enough to stop a dragon by holding a shield, but it suddenly became less effective when you gave him a huge 2 hander to swing around, despite all the strength (in practice) it should have because stopping anything with a shield requires huge strength.</p><p>arch demons, strong and smart enough to marshal entire armies stupidly attacking some party member designated as 'tank', and getting its ass spanked. 'threat' my ass.</p><p>the forced stupidity that says a ranged class, especially archer/ranger, should be less effective a damage dealer and should have pathetically low range to make melee classes viable. crossbows which were strong enough to punch full plate + chanmail sets of armor from close range to instantly kill knights does 'damage' to them instead. archers are able to only shoot effectively at 42 yards range. as if agincourt has never happened. the feeling of a real ranger/archer which lurks in a forest/area and snipes the enemy from afar without enemy ever being aware of him/her, is nowhere to be found in games, despite they were a common occurrence in real history and is a frequent occurrence in fantasy fiction.</p><p>insanely powerful, stupid mage class. press a button, and freeze 10 enemies to sleep or something. spells 'ignore' armor. the 'crowd control' stupidity, which has never existed in any real battle situation, hell even in no legend/lore the earth civilization has had up to this point, including the later fiction works, leave aside ancient legends. pitt a party of 4 against 10 enemies to create 'challenge', and then be obliged to put the stupid 'crowd control' concept into the game. if you were going to let me freeze 8 out of 10 enemies with 'crowd control' and deal with them one by one, why did you put 10 enemies to challenge me in the first place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>weapon inconsistencies. the hilariously stupid 'dual wield' thing, which does more 'dps' than other weapons. dual wield<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something that has never been a reality or practicality in entire world history, even including the daggers 17th century musketeers used to wield in left hand for extra control and exploiting occasional openings in duels. go 1-2 centuries backwards, and you will find that lighter weapons which can be wielded in one hand couldnt do shit against heavy armor, and every knight either used swords +shield combo or heavy 2 hander mauls or maces to penetrate armor and negate it, if they were not mounted with a lance. yet, for some reason we have this 'damage' dealing dual wielding nonsense in every goddamn game.</p><p>stupid classes. a 'bard' class, that noone can say what it practically does. vague lines to distinguish it even the rogue set it is supposed to belong. 'sings and entrances enemies'. really ? i mean, really ? you sing, and you entrance a demon with your song and freeze it. but isnt that definition of some kind of magic ?</p><p>stealth nonsense. going invisible in broad daylight in open field and moving towards an enemy and 'ambushing' it. total hilarity. and that's despite the success Thief series had in gaming industry. they still didnt wake up to the fact that more realism means more excitement for the player.</p><p>no flexibility. you HAVE to have a tank, a healer, a controller and a damage dealer. the same old shit everywhere, every game. no variation. no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad. you need to rinse and repeat the same ancient, derelict format in every game. no room for error too - you have to increase tank's defenses, resistances so that it will hold the insanely stupid archdemons, you have to get cc spells for your mage so that it will be able to negate 8 out of 10 enemies you are presented for 'challenge'.</p><p>and the 'dungeon' concept. it was fun back in 1980s, but its not fun anymore. fighting and killing 13182356216 random mobs and 2 mini bosses and a major boss at the end o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i just finished dragon age origins .
again there was the stereotypical class definitions and mechanic that made little sense .
a 'tank ' which is horribly strong enough to stop a dragon by holding a shield , but it suddenly became less effective when you gave him a huge 2 hander to swing around , despite all the strength ( in practice ) it should have because stopping anything with a shield requires huge strength.arch demons , strong and smart enough to marshal entire armies stupidly attacking some party member designated as 'tank ' , and getting its ass spanked .
'threat ' my ass.the forced stupidity that says a ranged class , especially archer/ranger , should be less effective a damage dealer and should have pathetically low range to make melee classes viable .
crossbows which were strong enough to punch full plate + chanmail sets of armor from close range to instantly kill knights does 'damage ' to them instead .
archers are able to only shoot effectively at 42 yards range .
as if agincourt has never happened .
the feeling of a real ranger/archer which lurks in a forest/area and snipes the enemy from afar without enemy ever being aware of him/her , is nowhere to be found in games , despite they were a common occurrence in real history and is a frequent occurrence in fantasy fiction.insanely powerful , stupid mage class .
press a button , and freeze 10 enemies to sleep or something .
spells 'ignore ' armor .
the 'crowd control ' stupidity , which has never existed in any real battle situation , hell even in no legend/lore the earth civilization has had up to this point , including the later fiction works , leave aside ancient legends .
pitt a party of 4 against 10 enemies to create 'challenge ' , and then be obliged to put the stupid 'crowd control ' concept into the game .
if you were going to let me freeze 8 out of 10 enemies with 'crowd control ' and deal with them one by one , why did you put 10 enemies to challenge me in the first place ...weapon inconsistencies .
the hilariously stupid 'dual wield ' thing , which does more 'dps ' than other weapons .
dual wield ... something that has never been a reality or practicality in entire world history , even including the daggers 17th century musketeers used to wield in left hand for extra control and exploiting occasional openings in duels .
go 1-2 centuries backwards , and you will find that lighter weapons which can be wielded in one hand couldnt do shit against heavy armor , and every knight either used swords + shield combo or heavy 2 hander mauls or maces to penetrate armor and negate it , if they were not mounted with a lance .
yet , for some reason we have this 'damage ' dealing dual wielding nonsense in every goddamn game.stupid classes .
a 'bard ' class , that noone can say what it practically does .
vague lines to distinguish it even the rogue set it is supposed to belong .
'sings and entrances enemies' .
really ?
i mean , really ?
you sing , and you entrance a demon with your song and freeze it .
but isnt that definition of some kind of magic ? stealth nonsense .
going invisible in broad daylight in open field and moving towards an enemy and 'ambushing ' it .
total hilarity .
and that 's despite the success Thief series had in gaming industry .
they still didnt wake up to the fact that more realism means more excitement for the player.no flexibility .
you HAVE to have a tank , a healer , a controller and a damage dealer .
the same old shit everywhere , every game .
no variation .
no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad .
you need to rinse and repeat the same ancient , derelict format in every game .
no room for error too - you have to increase tank 's defenses , resistances so that it will hold the insanely stupid archdemons , you have to get cc spells for your mage so that it will be able to negate 8 out of 10 enemies you are presented for 'challenge'.and the 'dungeon ' concept .
it was fun back in 1980s , but its not fun anymore .
fighting and killing 13182356216 random mobs and 2 mini bosses and a major boss at the end o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i just finished dragon age origins.
again there was the stereotypical class definitions and mechanic that made little sense.
a 'tank' which is horribly strong enough to stop a dragon by holding a shield, but it suddenly became less effective when you gave him a huge 2 hander to swing around, despite all the strength (in practice) it should have because stopping anything with a shield requires huge strength.arch demons, strong and smart enough to marshal entire armies stupidly attacking some party member designated as 'tank', and getting its ass spanked.
'threat' my ass.the forced stupidity that says a ranged class, especially archer/ranger, should be less effective a damage dealer and should have pathetically low range to make melee classes viable.
crossbows which were strong enough to punch full plate + chanmail sets of armor from close range to instantly kill knights does 'damage' to them instead.
archers are able to only shoot effectively at 42 yards range.
as if agincourt has never happened.
the feeling of a real ranger/archer which lurks in a forest/area and snipes the enemy from afar without enemy ever being aware of him/her, is nowhere to be found in games, despite they were a common occurrence in real history and is a frequent occurrence in fantasy fiction.insanely powerful, stupid mage class.
press a button, and freeze 10 enemies to sleep or something.
spells 'ignore' armor.
the 'crowd control' stupidity, which has never existed in any real battle situation, hell even in no legend/lore the earth civilization has had up to this point, including the later fiction works, leave aside ancient legends.
pitt a party of 4 against 10 enemies to create 'challenge', and then be obliged to put the stupid 'crowd control' concept into the game.
if you were going to let me freeze 8 out of 10 enemies with 'crowd control' and deal with them one by one, why did you put 10 enemies to challenge me in the first place ...weapon inconsistencies.
the hilariously stupid 'dual wield' thing, which does more 'dps' than other weapons.
dual wield ... something that has never been a reality or practicality in entire world history, even including the daggers 17th century musketeers used to wield in left hand for extra control and exploiting occasional openings in duels.
go 1-2 centuries backwards, and you will find that lighter weapons which can be wielded in one hand couldnt do shit against heavy armor, and every knight either used swords +shield combo or heavy 2 hander mauls or maces to penetrate armor and negate it, if they were not mounted with a lance.
yet, for some reason we have this 'damage' dealing dual wielding nonsense in every goddamn game.stupid classes.
a 'bard' class, that noone can say what it practically does.
vague lines to distinguish it even the rogue set it is supposed to belong.
'sings and entrances enemies'.
really ?
i mean, really ?
you sing, and you entrance a demon with your song and freeze it.
but isnt that definition of some kind of magic ?stealth nonsense.
going invisible in broad daylight in open field and moving towards an enemy and 'ambushing' it.
total hilarity.
and that's despite the success Thief series had in gaming industry.
they still didnt wake up to the fact that more realism means more excitement for the player.no flexibility.
you HAVE to have a tank, a healer, a controller and a damage dealer.
the same old shit everywhere, every game.
no variation.
no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad.
you need to rinse and repeat the same ancient, derelict format in every game.
no room for error too - you have to increase tank's defenses, resistances so that it will hold the insanely stupid archdemons, you have to get cc spells for your mage so that it will be able to negate 8 out of 10 enemies you are presented for 'challenge'.and the 'dungeon' concept.
it was fun back in 1980s, but its not fun anymore.
fighting and killing 13182356216 random mobs and 2 mini bosses and a major boss at the end o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492022</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1261169700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no flexibility. you HAVE to have a tank, a healer, a controller and a damage dealer. the same old shit everywhere, every game. no variation. no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad. you need to rinse and repeat the same ancient, derelict format in every game. no room for error too - you have to increase tank's defenses, resistances so that it will hold the insanely stupid archdemons, you have to get cc spells for your mage so that it will be able to negate 8 out of 10 enemies you are presented for 'challenge'.</p></div><p> The main problem: everyone wants to kill the best boss (for the best loot) the fastest, so they follow cookie cutted guidelines because they can't think for themselves or enjoy a challenge (this is a majority, some players do enjoy a challenge - mage only/range only etc. groups). This leads most people to hate on the <b>tried and true method that they themselves can EASILY deviate from</b> (grab a full party of tanks, so what, it will be slower and you will complain about that? WHAT DID YOU EXPECT)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no flexibility .
you HAVE to have a tank , a healer , a controller and a damage dealer .
the same old shit everywhere , every game .
no variation .
no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad .
you need to rinse and repeat the same ancient , derelict format in every game .
no room for error too - you have to increase tank 's defenses , resistances so that it will hold the insanely stupid archdemons , you have to get cc spells for your mage so that it will be able to negate 8 out of 10 enemies you are presented for 'challenge' .
The main problem : everyone wants to kill the best boss ( for the best loot ) the fastest , so they follow cookie cutted guidelines because they ca n't think for themselves or enjoy a challenge ( this is a majority , some players do enjoy a challenge - mage only/range only etc .
groups ) . This leads most people to hate on the tried and true method that they themselves can EASILY deviate from ( grab a full party of tanks , so what , it will be slower and you will complain about that ?
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no flexibility.
you HAVE to have a tank, a healer, a controller and a damage dealer.
the same old shit everywhere, every game.
no variation.
no room for an all melee warband or all archer bandit squad.
you need to rinse and repeat the same ancient, derelict format in every game.
no room for error too - you have to increase tank's defenses, resistances so that it will hold the insanely stupid archdemons, you have to get cc spells for your mage so that it will be able to negate 8 out of 10 enemies you are presented for 'challenge'.
The main problem: everyone wants to kill the best boss (for the best loot) the fastest, so they follow cookie cutted guidelines because they can't think for themselves or enjoy a challenge (this is a majority, some players do enjoy a challenge - mage only/range only etc.
groups). This leads most people to hate on the tried and true method that they themselves can EASILY deviate from (grab a full party of tanks, so what, it will be slower and you will complain about that?
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486294</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>danbert8</author>
	<datestamp>1261147440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a MMORPG, but it is a MORPG.  Fallout 3 is a great game where you can pretty much do whatever you want.  All the skills are individual and independent.  It does have a multiplayer, nut I would like to see a Fallout MMORPG.  It is an interesting universe, with multiple factions that people can side with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a MMORPG , but it is a MORPG .
Fallout 3 is a great game where you can pretty much do whatever you want .
All the skills are individual and independent .
It does have a multiplayer , nut I would like to see a Fallout MMORPG .
It is an interesting universe , with multiple factions that people can side with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a MMORPG, but it is a MORPG.
Fallout 3 is a great game where you can pretty much do whatever you want.
All the skills are individual and independent.
It does have a multiplayer, nut I would like to see a Fallout MMORPG.
It is an interesting universe, with multiple factions that people can side with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486226</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>asheron's call did/does</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>asheron 's call did/does</tokentext>
<sentencetext>asheron's call did/does</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492184</id>
	<title>Re:Batman analogy</title>
	<author>damien\_kane</author>
	<datestamp>1261127100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way to win is not to play?  I think I've heard that somewhere before...</p></div><p>"The only winning move..."<br>
The phrase, stated as you have, implies you are already playing (as presumably one plays to win), and thus have already lost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to win is not to play ?
I think I 've heard that somewhere before... " The only winning move... " The phrase , stated as you have , implies you are already playing ( as presumably one plays to win ) , and thus have already lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to win is not to play?
I think I've heard that somewhere before..."The only winning move..."
The phrase, stated as you have, implies you are already playing (as presumably one plays to win), and thus have already lost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486972</id>
	<title>This has been done...</title>
	<author>Vohar</author>
	<datestamp>1261150680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've played a few games now that didn't rely as much on the tank/healer/damage setup. It always ends up turning into no-tactic free-for-all fighting. Everyone's just trying to do as much damage as possible to enemies; those with defensive abilities activate them and then go back to damage like the rest of their team. Group coordination in such games is at most picking the kill order; beyond that it's just "everybody do whatever."</p><p>Some may prefer that style of group play, but it wasn't as fun to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've played a few games now that did n't rely as much on the tank/healer/damage setup .
It always ends up turning into no-tactic free-for-all fighting .
Everyone 's just trying to do as much damage as possible to enemies ; those with defensive abilities activate them and then go back to damage like the rest of their team .
Group coordination in such games is at most picking the kill order ; beyond that it 's just " everybody do whatever .
" Some may prefer that style of group play , but it was n't as fun to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've played a few games now that didn't rely as much on the tank/healer/damage setup.
It always ends up turning into no-tactic free-for-all fighting.
Everyone's just trying to do as much damage as possible to enemies; those with defensive abilities activate them and then go back to damage like the rest of their team.
Group coordination in such games is at most picking the kill order; beyond that it's just "everybody do whatever.
"Some may prefer that style of group play, but it wasn't as fun to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485832</id>
	<title>Re:So get rid of healing</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1261144620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>maybe they should move to a system based on shields, cavalry, infantry, and artillery</i></p><p>You obviously come from a wargaming background... But I don't think that would be fun to play in an RPG context. The reason behind healing was to allow PCs to live more, like heroes in novels, while dealing with dangers heroes in novels would not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe they should move to a system based on shields , cavalry , infantry , and artilleryYou obviously come from a wargaming background... But I do n't think that would be fun to play in an RPG context .
The reason behind healing was to allow PCs to live more , like heroes in novels , while dealing with dangers heroes in novels would not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe they should move to a system based on shields, cavalry, infantry, and artilleryYou obviously come from a wargaming background... But I don't think that would be fun to play in an RPG context.
The reason behind healing was to allow PCs to live more, like heroes in novels, while dealing with dangers heroes in novels would not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485910</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1261145280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good examples!</p><blockquote><div><p>Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).</p></div></blockquote><p>Or go in the Cthulhu direction: sanity points! Horrific monsters would require different skills (restore sanity, block horrors etc). You would still end up with a trinity, but you would require a different trinity for different encounters. An emotionally-stable cleric who normally heals would have to tank, for instance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good examples ! Add one more number to push into the negatives ( typically , armor and shield ) and you 'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number ( a shield healer of some sort ) a class that damages said number ( An EMP mage ) and a class that endures more damage to said number ( A shield...tank ) .Or go in the Cthulhu direction : sanity points !
Horrific monsters would require different skills ( restore sanity , block horrors etc ) .
You would still end up with a trinity , but you would require a different trinity for different encounters .
An emotionally-stable cleric who normally heals would have to tank , for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good examples!Add one more number to push into the negatives (typically, armor and shield) and you'll have the posibility of creating a class that manipulates that other number (a shield healer of some sort) a class that damages said number (An EMP mage) and a class that endures more damage to said number (A shield...tank).Or go in the Cthulhu direction: sanity points!
Horrific monsters would require different skills (restore sanity, block horrors etc).
You would still end up with a trinity, but you would require a different trinity for different encounters.
An emotionally-stable cleric who normally heals would have to tank, for instance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486236</id>
	<title>Asheron's Call did, what like in 98 or so?</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1261147140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a stat and skill based game.  You could be everything and be damn good at it.  Essentially what happened in AC was the people mini-maxed their characters to an extreme because you simply had an unlimited amount of experience to be gained.  That game was fun because it was about being under the dozens if not more mobs and having the ability to get out alive.  Nothing really has compared to combat AC style.  Let alone PvP.  Hands down the best PvP of any MMORPG.  You can dodge spells in AC!!!  See the giant snowball coming at you, just side step.</p><p>Still it lead to what one should have expected.  If you can do about everything you really don't need anyone else.  Yeah, specialized tanks were able soak up damage better than some mages but like UO, tank mages existed and they could withstand quite a bit too.</p><p>Of course with no class based system comes some fun when you allow stats/skills to reach silly numbers, like run speeds that would make even the fastest drake in WOW look like a slouch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a stat and skill based game .
You could be everything and be damn good at it .
Essentially what happened in AC was the people mini-maxed their characters to an extreme because you simply had an unlimited amount of experience to be gained .
That game was fun because it was about being under the dozens if not more mobs and having the ability to get out alive .
Nothing really has compared to combat AC style .
Let alone PvP .
Hands down the best PvP of any MMORPG .
You can dodge spells in AC ! ! !
See the giant snowball coming at you , just side step.Still it lead to what one should have expected .
If you can do about everything you really do n't need anyone else .
Yeah , specialized tanks were able soak up damage better than some mages but like UO , tank mages existed and they could withstand quite a bit too.Of course with no class based system comes some fun when you allow stats/skills to reach silly numbers , like run speeds that would make even the fastest drake in WOW look like a slouch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a stat and skill based game.
You could be everything and be damn good at it.
Essentially what happened in AC was the people mini-maxed their characters to an extreme because you simply had an unlimited amount of experience to be gained.
That game was fun because it was about being under the dozens if not more mobs and having the ability to get out alive.
Nothing really has compared to combat AC style.
Let alone PvP.
Hands down the best PvP of any MMORPG.
You can dodge spells in AC!!!
See the giant snowball coming at you, just side step.Still it lead to what one should have expected.
If you can do about everything you really don't need anyone else.
Yeah, specialized tanks were able soak up damage better than some mages but like UO, tank mages existed and they could withstand quite a bit too.Of course with no class based system comes some fun when you allow stats/skills to reach silly numbers, like run speeds that would make even the fastest drake in WOW look like a slouch</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487106</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1261151460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only reason the tank/dps/healer thing works is because of dumb AI.  So, you're taking out a whole army of goblins or whatever in some cave.  You come up to groups of 2-3 bad guys at a time, in constrained corridors so that your tank can actually block them from getting past.</p><p>There are a couple of obvious counters to this.  The first group of 2-3 puts their biggest tanks in your way to slow you down, while the last guy does a Paul Revere and every goblin in the lair is headed your way.  While they hold you up a bunch of them leave via their back door and circle around to come at you from behind.  The goblins of course put their own tanks in front, and defend themselves from prepared positions.  If you come across a long corridor you can bet that there will be archers chopping you to pieces from the far end.</p><p>However, the game AI just sends people at you in mobs of 2-3 to be chewed up one at a time.</p><p>In open terrain any larger group of enemies would certainly flank your tanks and take out your rear forces.  They would never bunch up to allow an area-effect spell to do anything.</p><p>I do agree with some of the posters that a fantasy game shouldn't be completely realistic.  In any REAL war with reasonably matched forces almost nobody makes it through multiple battles alive.  Most people kill at most a few enemy soldiers and then are killed themselves.  That doesn't make for good gameplay.</p><p>However, I am not big on MMORPGs because they are way too formulaic - the grind, roles, etc.  I can't just go and do what I want to do unless I only want to experience a small part of the game or tick off my party/guildmates/whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only reason the tank/dps/healer thing works is because of dumb AI .
So , you 're taking out a whole army of goblins or whatever in some cave .
You come up to groups of 2-3 bad guys at a time , in constrained corridors so that your tank can actually block them from getting past.There are a couple of obvious counters to this .
The first group of 2-3 puts their biggest tanks in your way to slow you down , while the last guy does a Paul Revere and every goblin in the lair is headed your way .
While they hold you up a bunch of them leave via their back door and circle around to come at you from behind .
The goblins of course put their own tanks in front , and defend themselves from prepared positions .
If you come across a long corridor you can bet that there will be archers chopping you to pieces from the far end.However , the game AI just sends people at you in mobs of 2-3 to be chewed up one at a time.In open terrain any larger group of enemies would certainly flank your tanks and take out your rear forces .
They would never bunch up to allow an area-effect spell to do anything.I do agree with some of the posters that a fantasy game should n't be completely realistic .
In any REAL war with reasonably matched forces almost nobody makes it through multiple battles alive .
Most people kill at most a few enemy soldiers and then are killed themselves .
That does n't make for good gameplay.However , I am not big on MMORPGs because they are way too formulaic - the grind , roles , etc .
I ca n't just go and do what I want to do unless I only want to experience a small part of the game or tick off my party/guildmates/whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only reason the tank/dps/healer thing works is because of dumb AI.
So, you're taking out a whole army of goblins or whatever in some cave.
You come up to groups of 2-3 bad guys at a time, in constrained corridors so that your tank can actually block them from getting past.There are a couple of obvious counters to this.
The first group of 2-3 puts their biggest tanks in your way to slow you down, while the last guy does a Paul Revere and every goblin in the lair is headed your way.
While they hold you up a bunch of them leave via their back door and circle around to come at you from behind.
The goblins of course put their own tanks in front, and defend themselves from prepared positions.
If you come across a long corridor you can bet that there will be archers chopping you to pieces from the far end.However, the game AI just sends people at you in mobs of 2-3 to be chewed up one at a time.In open terrain any larger group of enemies would certainly flank your tanks and take out your rear forces.
They would never bunch up to allow an area-effect spell to do anything.I do agree with some of the posters that a fantasy game shouldn't be completely realistic.
In any REAL war with reasonably matched forces almost nobody makes it through multiple battles alive.
Most people kill at most a few enemy soldiers and then are killed themselves.
That doesn't make for good gameplay.However, I am not big on MMORPGs because they are way too formulaic - the grind, roles, etc.
I can't just go and do what I want to do unless I only want to experience a small part of the game or tick off my party/guildmates/whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486380</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1261147740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't have to be that pronounced. Just so that if in 3v3 3 rocks beats 3 scissors, you're fine. These things tend to be more pronounced when you add players, since there's sort of a snowball effect when you get more. Say you've got a 10\% damage bonus, well in 3v3 that's pretty much a 30\% damage bonus as far as the first guy you kill is concerned if you play your cards right.</p><p>But I play more RTS, where skill tends to be the balancing factor (though obviously civ plays a role.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't have to be that pronounced .
Just so that if in 3v3 3 rocks beats 3 scissors , you 're fine .
These things tend to be more pronounced when you add players , since there 's sort of a snowball effect when you get more .
Say you 've got a 10 \ % damage bonus , well in 3v3 that 's pretty much a 30 \ % damage bonus as far as the first guy you kill is concerned if you play your cards right.But I play more RTS , where skill tends to be the balancing factor ( though obviously civ plays a role .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't have to be that pronounced.
Just so that if in 3v3 3 rocks beats 3 scissors, you're fine.
These things tend to be more pronounced when you add players, since there's sort of a snowball effect when you get more.
Say you've got a 10\% damage bonus, well in 3v3 that's pretty much a 30\% damage bonus as far as the first guy you kill is concerned if you play your cards right.But I play more RTS, where skill tends to be the balancing factor (though obviously civ plays a role.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698</id>
	<title>Pigeonholding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261143240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.</p><p>Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pigeonhold the players into one of the 3 style is easy.Letting the players to pick and choose from an array of strength / agility / defense for their own character would be a nighmare for those who program the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485958</id>
	<title>Re:Rock, Scissors, Paper</title>
	<author>Presence2</author>
	<datestamp>1261145580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock, Paper, Shotgun - since 1873, the superior answer. (google it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock , Paper , Shotgun - since 1873 , the superior answer .
( google it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock, Paper, Shotgun - since 1873, the superior answer.
(google it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493886</id>
	<title>Re:AoE and AE</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1261134180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people (other than Blizzard devs) refer to Damage Dealers as 'DPS'?  They are (properly) measured in a lot more ways than just their spikes on the damage meters.  Why do we call 'tanks' 'tanks'?  They carry nothing like the artillery that a real tank does, and real tanks do not tend to draw fire from infantry anyway.  What kind of enemy force fires machine gun rounds at a tank?  It makes no sense.  Why do we call 'earning a level' 'ding'?  Not every game makes this kind of sound...</p><p>Why?  Convention, plain and simple.  When some first termed it 'AoE', it stuck, and once it took hold it became the 'correct' term.  You may have a logical reason for changing it, but since it is used to communicate an agreed-upon thing, you'll never gain any support for doing so.</p><p>In short, what is more idiotic, accepting the convention and choosing to communicate using the agreed-upon method or being excessively pedantic even while knowing full well nothing will ever come of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people ( other than Blizzard devs ) refer to Damage Dealers as 'DPS ' ?
They are ( properly ) measured in a lot more ways than just their spikes on the damage meters .
Why do we call 'tanks ' 'tanks ' ?
They carry nothing like the artillery that a real tank does , and real tanks do not tend to draw fire from infantry anyway .
What kind of enemy force fires machine gun rounds at a tank ?
It makes no sense .
Why do we call 'earning a level ' 'ding ' ?
Not every game makes this kind of sound...Why ?
Convention , plain and simple .
When some first termed it 'AoE ' , it stuck , and once it took hold it became the 'correct ' term .
You may have a logical reason for changing it , but since it is used to communicate an agreed-upon thing , you 'll never gain any support for doing so.In short , what is more idiotic , accepting the convention and choosing to communicate using the agreed-upon method or being excessively pedantic even while knowing full well nothing will ever come of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people (other than Blizzard devs) refer to Damage Dealers as 'DPS'?
They are (properly) measured in a lot more ways than just their spikes on the damage meters.
Why do we call 'tanks' 'tanks'?
They carry nothing like the artillery that a real tank does, and real tanks do not tend to draw fire from infantry anyway.
What kind of enemy force fires machine gun rounds at a tank?
It makes no sense.
Why do we call 'earning a level' 'ding'?
Not every game makes this kind of sound...Why?
Convention, plain and simple.
When some first termed it 'AoE', it stuck, and once it took hold it became the 'correct' term.
You may have a logical reason for changing it, but since it is used to communicate an agreed-upon thing, you'll never gain any support for doing so.In short, what is more idiotic, accepting the convention and choosing to communicate using the agreed-upon method or being excessively pedantic even while knowing full well nothing will ever come of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485774</id>
	<title>Re:Get away with the classes already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261144020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima\_Online" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">UO</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UO [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UO [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490730</id>
	<title>Re:BUG REPORT for /. admins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261164840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent post has a "Read the rest of this comment..." link <b>after the end of its content</b>. In other words, if you click the link the only difference is that the stand-alone post doesn't have the additional link.</p><p>This must be some kind of "off by stupidity" bug in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent post has a " Read the rest of this comment... " link after the end of its content .
In other words , if you click the link the only difference is that the stand-alone post does n't have the additional link.This must be some kind of " off by stupidity " bug in the / .
code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent post has a "Read the rest of this comment..." link after the end of its content.
In other words, if you click the link the only difference is that the stand-alone post doesn't have the additional link.This must be some kind of "off by stupidity" bug in the /.
code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486502</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your complaint is that the game breaks from realism? Seriously? You want to play a fantasy game that is realistic? That would be the worst game EVAR! If you didn't die instantly from a rogue jabbing a dagger into your kidneys or an archer putting an arrow into your eye socket, you'd probably end up dead from an infected wound. This is FANTASY! Learn the concept or go play a different game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your complaint is that the game breaks from realism ?
Seriously ? You want to play a fantasy game that is realistic ?
That would be the worst game EVAR !
If you did n't die instantly from a rogue jabbing a dagger into your kidneys or an archer putting an arrow into your eye socket , you 'd probably end up dead from an infected wound .
This is FANTASY !
Learn the concept or go play a different game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your complaint is that the game breaks from realism?
Seriously? You want to play a fantasy game that is realistic?
That would be the worst game EVAR!
If you didn't die instantly from a rogue jabbing a dagger into your kidneys or an archer putting an arrow into your eye socket, you'd probably end up dead from an infected wound.
This is FANTASY!
Learn the concept or go play a different game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487996</id>
	<title>Re:Two words:</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1261155060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for mentioning situational awareness, now I have to rant too...</p><p>I did a boss the other day which lays slow-moving fire in straight, unchanging paths to random players throughout the fight (Marrowgar for the informed). It is bright blue fire, and painfully obvious to see on the dark grey/black floor.</p><p>ELEVEN out of my twenty-five teammates died to this fire. ELEVEN people either A) fell asleep at the keyboard, B) failed to recognize the complex pattern that is 'moves in a straight line', or C) actually managed to start run away, but inexplicably ran STRAIGHT BACK along the path of the fire.</p><p>I felt sorry for our healers (the ones who didn't die in fire anyways)... one person managed to take 90k damage from fire alone. For those unfamiliar with standard health pools, that means he would have died over FOUR TIMES in the fight from completely avoidable damage. I can only hope he was RPing a hunter with cold feet that he wanted to warm in the fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for mentioning situational awareness , now I have to rant too...I did a boss the other day which lays slow-moving fire in straight , unchanging paths to random players throughout the fight ( Marrowgar for the informed ) .
It is bright blue fire , and painfully obvious to see on the dark grey/black floor.ELEVEN out of my twenty-five teammates died to this fire .
ELEVEN people either A ) fell asleep at the keyboard , B ) failed to recognize the complex pattern that is 'moves in a straight line ' , or C ) actually managed to start run away , but inexplicably ran STRAIGHT BACK along the path of the fire.I felt sorry for our healers ( the ones who did n't die in fire anyways ) ... one person managed to take 90k damage from fire alone .
For those unfamiliar with standard health pools , that means he would have died over FOUR TIMES in the fight from completely avoidable damage .
I can only hope he was RPing a hunter with cold feet that he wanted to warm in the fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for mentioning situational awareness, now I have to rant too...I did a boss the other day which lays slow-moving fire in straight, unchanging paths to random players throughout the fight (Marrowgar for the informed).
It is bright blue fire, and painfully obvious to see on the dark grey/black floor.ELEVEN out of my twenty-five teammates died to this fire.
ELEVEN people either A) fell asleep at the keyboard, B) failed to recognize the complex pattern that is 'moves in a straight line', or C) actually managed to start run away, but inexplicably ran STRAIGHT BACK along the path of the fire.I felt sorry for our healers (the ones who didn't die in fire anyways)... one person managed to take 90k damage from fire alone.
For those unfamiliar with standard health pools, that means he would have died over FOUR TIMES in the fight from completely avoidable damage.
I can only hope he was RPing a hunter with cold feet that he wanted to warm in the fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491966</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1261169460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I suck at real life. If I could win at life, I wouldn't have to play games. I play games because they are not like real life and I have a chance to understand how they work because they have rules that are simpler than the real world. Most games refer to real life concepts without using real life rules because to do otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.
</p><p>
Look at Hi Ho! Cherry-O. This is not an accurate representation of the cherry harvesting process, but the idea that you are picking cherries from a tree and collecting them in baskets gives the game some context.
</p><p>
When I watch cartoons, I do not complain because Willie Coyote is still hanging in mid-air after he runs of the side of a cliff or that chickens don't talk like a Southern plantation owner.
</p><p>
Fantasy games are fun (for people who enjoy them) because they have game mechanics that are generally understood. I was able to understand Dragon Age precisely because it followed so many fantasy conventions. It's true, adding more simulated reality or breaking with conventions <i>can</i> be more fun, but it doesn't <i>make</i> it more fun. It can fail miserably too. I would not want to play as the French in the game of Agincourt. And I would not want to play the game with one life and no healing potions and no saves/resurrections. To me, that would not be fun.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suck at real life .
If I could win at life , I would n't have to play games .
I play games because they are not like real life and I have a chance to understand how they work because they have rules that are simpler than the real world .
Most games refer to real life concepts without using real life rules because to do otherwise would be entirely arbitrary .
Look at Hi Ho !
Cherry-O. This is not an accurate representation of the cherry harvesting process , but the idea that you are picking cherries from a tree and collecting them in baskets gives the game some context .
When I watch cartoons , I do not complain because Willie Coyote is still hanging in mid-air after he runs of the side of a cliff or that chickens do n't talk like a Southern plantation owner .
Fantasy games are fun ( for people who enjoy them ) because they have game mechanics that are generally understood .
I was able to understand Dragon Age precisely because it followed so many fantasy conventions .
It 's true , adding more simulated reality or breaking with conventions can be more fun , but it does n't make it more fun .
It can fail miserably too .
I would not want to play as the French in the game of Agincourt .
And I would not want to play the game with one life and no healing potions and no saves/resurrections .
To me , that would not be fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I suck at real life.
If I could win at life, I wouldn't have to play games.
I play games because they are not like real life and I have a chance to understand how they work because they have rules that are simpler than the real world.
Most games refer to real life concepts without using real life rules because to do otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.
Look at Hi Ho!
Cherry-O. This is not an accurate representation of the cherry harvesting process, but the idea that you are picking cherries from a tree and collecting them in baskets gives the game some context.
When I watch cartoons, I do not complain because Willie Coyote is still hanging in mid-air after he runs of the side of a cliff or that chickens don't talk like a Southern plantation owner.
Fantasy games are fun (for people who enjoy them) because they have game mechanics that are generally understood.
I was able to understand Dragon Age precisely because it followed so many fantasy conventions.
It's true, adding more simulated reality or breaking with conventions can be more fun, but it doesn't make it more fun.
It can fail miserably too.
I would not want to play as the French in the game of Agincourt.
And I would not want to play the game with one life and no healing potions and no saves/resurrections.
To me, that would not be fun.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486080</id>
	<title>Re:Tbh, these definitions need to be dropped.</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1261146300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm wrong but: Are you judging a fantasy game because of its historical inaccuracy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm wrong but : Are you judging a fantasy game because of its historical inaccuracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm wrong but: Are you judging a fantasy game because of its historical inaccuracy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487582</id>
	<title>Re:Apple vs Linux</title>
	<author>SpacePunk</author>
	<datestamp>1261153440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, all the Apple vs. Linux vs Windows pissing aside...</p><p>Star Wars Galaxies originally had a multitude of classes with 32 different subsets in each class.  People could pick and choose according to their play style, and tailor the character to their individual needs.  It was fantastic.  Up untill they decided to pigeon hole players into archetype classes that resembled the main star wars characters, then the smart player base dried up.  That's the whole crux of the matter right there... the smart players vs the dumb players.  Unfortunately there are more dumb players than smart players, and every single game will always devolve to suit the dumb players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , all the Apple vs. Linux vs Windows pissing aside...Star Wars Galaxies originally had a multitude of classes with 32 different subsets in each class .
People could pick and choose according to their play style , and tailor the character to their individual needs .
It was fantastic .
Up untill they decided to pigeon hole players into archetype classes that resembled the main star wars characters , then the smart player base dried up .
That 's the whole crux of the matter right there... the smart players vs the dumb players .
Unfortunately there are more dumb players than smart players , and every single game will always devolve to suit the dumb players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, all the Apple vs. Linux vs Windows pissing aside...Star Wars Galaxies originally had a multitude of classes with 32 different subsets in each class.
People could pick and choose according to their play style, and tailor the character to their individual needs.
It was fantastic.
Up untill they decided to pigeon hole players into archetype classes that resembled the main star wars characters, then the smart player base dried up.
That's the whole crux of the matter right there... the smart players vs the dumb players.
Unfortunately there are more dumb players than smart players, and every single game will always devolve to suit the dumb players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487448</id>
	<title>Not a new argument, and no new answers.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1261152960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I run a beater.  Much simpler to just swing and let the spellchuckers throw over you, so long as there's a healer that can raise you without comps, or someone who will bestow some PoY to de-age you after.  Sucks to die old.</p><p>I've always run Ninjas in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar\_(computer\_game)" title="wikipedia.org">Avatar</a> [wikipedia.org], an old NovaNET game (now on <a href="http://www.cyber1.org/" title="cyber1.org">cyber1</a> [cyber1.org],apologies for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ing them) which I started in on in about <a href="http://www.textfiles.com/fun/spam3hh.txt" title="textfiles.com">1985</a> [textfiles.com] or so (hard to remember when).  I know Jim, and I was the first of the =mainei signons to get whacked, having offended many UICU ops, admins, and profs with my political views in =events (at the time UICU was infested with leftists, Marxists, and socialists.  Probably still is.)</p><p>I still play Avatar on cyber1, God forgive me, and I'm in my third year of learning to manage a healer and wizard.  But I digress...</p><p>This is the age-old problem in all role-playing games.  How 'realistic' do you want your fantasy?</p><p>Realisticaly, you would be an unusual specimen if you could in fact master all three major classes.  Just the time needed to build knowledge and physique makes it impractical, as if fantasy is realistic at all.  So games that enforce the three-class paradigm make sense.  But more to the point, most good role-playing games are founded on team building.</p><p>Think about it.  Playing D&amp;D with just you, the all-powerful master, and a DM who tries to make you dead, and no one else?  Pointless.  A decent weekend playing D&amp;D needed about a dozen people.  Someone had to get pizza, beer, and toilet paper.  Cmon, man.</p><p>So team play had to, from the beginning, be designed in.  Best way to do that is to divide skills so that you need at least two on a team to survive surprise encounters, and of course three or more to challenge demigods.  How many to thrash a boss?  This is why I'm not the least into WoW or any of that, though Diablo II almost got my attention.</p><p>At some point, these games devolve into simple (?) problem-solving, and while the graphics are pretty, they genuinely never match up to my imagination.  The last interation of Avatar on NovaNET statted off with a detailed description of many things, suchas the dungeon, monsters, and player characters.  Well, I always thought Wyvern Skin was not very stinky, and there were LOTS of monsters taller than 9 feet.  And the dungeon was sometimes pretty clean, and sometimes pretty nasty, and it didn't matter now deep you were.  But telling me what the writers' concepts were was not good.  Avatar is a graphics-challenged game.  You needed an imagination if you were the least into fantasy.</p><p>Now, Avatar on cyber1 is dominated by problem-solvers, who cruise the bottom to find the next insanely great thing.  And I run a beater because, sadly, I don't have to time to be part of a team and do more stuff.  So my challenges are to survive surprises with really harsh monsters, beat down the rich ones, amass the next billion in gold, and find a damned RoTP please, if you don't mind, there has to be ONE MORE LEFT, ok?</p><p>The class complaint is just another variation on 'I want to be all-powerful'.  Many a DM punished those who expressed that sentiment in their presence.  No different with the video versions.</p><p>Good luck, and good hunting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I run a beater .
Much simpler to just swing and let the spellchuckers throw over you , so long as there 's a healer that can raise you without comps , or someone who will bestow some PoY to de-age you after .
Sucks to die old.I 've always run Ninjas in Avatar [ wikipedia.org ] , an old NovaNET game ( now on cyber1 [ cyber1.org ] ,apologies for /.ing them ) which I started in on in about 1985 [ textfiles.com ] or so ( hard to remember when ) .
I know Jim , and I was the first of the = mainei signons to get whacked , having offended many UICU ops , admins , and profs with my political views in = events ( at the time UICU was infested with leftists , Marxists , and socialists .
Probably still is .
) I still play Avatar on cyber1 , God forgive me , and I 'm in my third year of learning to manage a healer and wizard .
But I digress...This is the age-old problem in all role-playing games .
How 'realistic ' do you want your fantasy ? Realisticaly , you would be an unusual specimen if you could in fact master all three major classes .
Just the time needed to build knowledge and physique makes it impractical , as if fantasy is realistic at all .
So games that enforce the three-class paradigm make sense .
But more to the point , most good role-playing games are founded on team building.Think about it .
Playing D&amp;D with just you , the all-powerful master , and a DM who tries to make you dead , and no one else ?
Pointless. A decent weekend playing D&amp;D needed about a dozen people .
Someone had to get pizza , beer , and toilet paper .
Cmon , man.So team play had to , from the beginning , be designed in .
Best way to do that is to divide skills so that you need at least two on a team to survive surprise encounters , and of course three or more to challenge demigods .
How many to thrash a boss ?
This is why I 'm not the least into WoW or any of that , though Diablo II almost got my attention.At some point , these games devolve into simple ( ?
) problem-solving , and while the graphics are pretty , they genuinely never match up to my imagination .
The last interation of Avatar on NovaNET statted off with a detailed description of many things , suchas the dungeon , monsters , and player characters .
Well , I always thought Wyvern Skin was not very stinky , and there were LOTS of monsters taller than 9 feet .
And the dungeon was sometimes pretty clean , and sometimes pretty nasty , and it did n't matter now deep you were .
But telling me what the writers ' concepts were was not good .
Avatar is a graphics-challenged game .
You needed an imagination if you were the least into fantasy.Now , Avatar on cyber1 is dominated by problem-solvers , who cruise the bottom to find the next insanely great thing .
And I run a beater because , sadly , I do n't have to time to be part of a team and do more stuff .
So my challenges are to survive surprises with really harsh monsters , beat down the rich ones , amass the next billion in gold , and find a damned RoTP please , if you do n't mind , there has to be ONE MORE LEFT , ok ? The class complaint is just another variation on 'I want to be all-powerful' .
Many a DM punished those who expressed that sentiment in their presence .
No different with the video versions.Good luck , and good hunting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I run a beater.
Much simpler to just swing and let the spellchuckers throw over you, so long as there's a healer that can raise you without comps, or someone who will bestow some PoY to de-age you after.
Sucks to die old.I've always run Ninjas in Avatar [wikipedia.org], an old NovaNET game (now on cyber1 [cyber1.org],apologies for /.ing them) which I started in on in about 1985 [textfiles.com] or so (hard to remember when).
I know Jim, and I was the first of the =mainei signons to get whacked, having offended many UICU ops, admins, and profs with my political views in =events (at the time UICU was infested with leftists, Marxists, and socialists.
Probably still is.
)I still play Avatar on cyber1, God forgive me, and I'm in my third year of learning to manage a healer and wizard.
But I digress...This is the age-old problem in all role-playing games.
How 'realistic' do you want your fantasy?Realisticaly, you would be an unusual specimen if you could in fact master all three major classes.
Just the time needed to build knowledge and physique makes it impractical, as if fantasy is realistic at all.
So games that enforce the three-class paradigm make sense.
But more to the point, most good role-playing games are founded on team building.Think about it.
Playing D&amp;D with just you, the all-powerful master, and a DM who tries to make you dead, and no one else?
Pointless.  A decent weekend playing D&amp;D needed about a dozen people.
Someone had to get pizza, beer, and toilet paper.
Cmon, man.So team play had to, from the beginning, be designed in.
Best way to do that is to divide skills so that you need at least two on a team to survive surprise encounters, and of course three or more to challenge demigods.
How many to thrash a boss?
This is why I'm not the least into WoW or any of that, though Diablo II almost got my attention.At some point, these games devolve into simple (?
) problem-solving, and while the graphics are pretty, they genuinely never match up to my imagination.
The last interation of Avatar on NovaNET statted off with a detailed description of many things, suchas the dungeon, monsters, and player characters.
Well, I always thought Wyvern Skin was not very stinky, and there were LOTS of monsters taller than 9 feet.
And the dungeon was sometimes pretty clean, and sometimes pretty nasty, and it didn't matter now deep you were.
But telling me what the writers' concepts were was not good.
Avatar is a graphics-challenged game.
You needed an imagination if you were the least into fantasy.Now, Avatar on cyber1 is dominated by problem-solvers, who cruise the bottom to find the next insanely great thing.
And I run a beater because, sadly, I don't have to time to be part of a team and do more stuff.
So my challenges are to survive surprises with really harsh monsters, beat down the rich ones, amass the next billion in gold, and find a damned RoTP please, if you don't mind, there has to be ONE MORE LEFT, ok?The class complaint is just another variation on 'I want to be all-powerful'.
Many a DM punished those who expressed that sentiment in their presence.
No different with the video versions.Good luck, and good hunting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489502</id>
	<title>Re:Despecialization isn't an objective.</title>
	<author>Jaeph</author>
	<datestamp>1261160940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we look at military history?  Infantry, cavalry, artillery?  Pikes, Muskets, Cavalry?  And so on.  There are many models we could use that provide interesting tactical arrangements without forcing groups to spend hours waiting for a healer.</p><p>-Jeff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we look at military history ?
Infantry , cavalry , artillery ?
Pikes , Muskets , Cavalry ?
And so on .
There are many models we could use that provide interesting tactical arrangements without forcing groups to spend hours waiting for a healer.-Jeff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we look at military history?
Infantry, cavalry, artillery?
Pikes, Muskets, Cavalry?
And so on.
There are many models we could use that provide interesting tactical arrangements without forcing groups to spend hours waiting for a healer.-Jeff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30494078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30495902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30496738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30525764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30512446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30494982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30497510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30495072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0710206_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486842
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30495902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30496738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30494078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30495072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30525764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30500642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30512446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30497510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30494982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30492388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30491194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30486552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30490670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30489326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30485758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30488582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30493886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0710206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0710206.30487448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
