Your favorite playing style

[Dark Spark]

Hanging a lampshade on every point I make is getting a little tiresome, you know. You make it appear that you're addressing the issue, when you're completely ignoring every point that is brought to bear.

Warriors use "everything they've got", just like Rogues. The trick is, "everything" for a Warrior accounts for a grand total of one technique: melee combat where you hope to inflict more damage on the enemy than what you can absorb.

Something that I am reminded here concerns aerial combat: dogfighting is a maneuvering solution to a positioning problem. A ranged-attack character moves to bring their weapons to bear on target while denying the target the same opportunity. A melee-oriented character brings himself into the weapons envelope of his target, trades blows and strives to outlast as well as to defeat his foe.

[Tryzon]

I made a first bloke, who was decent, but had 2 fairly useless major skills (alchemy and security, because I don't use potions much and the skeleton key makes security obsolete), so I ended him, instead starting again. My new bloke is similar, being a Dunmer who uses blades and a fair to medium bit of magic. He also sports 100% permanent bound armour, simply because the concept of weightless armour with no equal was too tempting to resist. He's also proficient with bows, and just hit journeyman. Good for him.

[weka]

Hanging a lampshade on every point I make is getting a little tiresome, you know. You make it appear that you're addressing the issue, when you're completely ignoring every point that is brought to bear.....

I'm sorry if you're feeling hostility or anything, but that is not my intention. I'm not ignoring the points you make, as I say, I disagree with some of them and I often find you rather contradictory in your opinions. Maybe I'm not getting the proper intent of some posts, but then it seems it's better to ask than just make assumptions??

Surely all combat comes down to "you hope to inflict more damage on the enemy than what you can absorb", even in situations where you manage to avoid all damage to yourself?

Anyhow, I stand by my previous post.

[Alupark]

Brenton with a blade.
Up close and personal. Touch ranged spells, and a good sword.
I can handle most situations with either, but I'm most lethal when using both.
Some sneaking (chameleon) when my life detection 180ft spots an archer.
I'm no good at longer range spells or marksman. (Coulndn't hit a barn wall even if I was standing in one.)

edit: Typos here, typos there, typos everywhere.

[Dark Spark]

...Surely all combat comes down to "you hope to inflict more damage on the enemy than what you can absorb",

"...comes down to..."? Well, I'd prefer my 'limited and blinkered' perspective rather than smother everything under a broad brush-stroke.

Your statement essentially lumps a Warrior's ability to withstand every blow that hits them with a Rogue's ability to avoid getting hit in the first place: since they generate the same end result, then their techniques and methods must be the same as well!

Well, wait a minute— a Rogue avoiding every attack and a Warrior laughing at every blow that hits him are two very different ways to play the game!

What "it comes down to" is linear distance, the range between combatants. It's a hard and fast rule of combat that the closer you are, the less room you have to maneuver in.

A ranged attacker has a large area by which they can command the ground— room to run around in, room in which their target can still be reached.

A melee attacker has to cover that ground and make direct contact. Once joined, the target has no room to run away (unless they extend away, thus turning it into a ranged engagement once more) but for a melee attacker to damage his target, he has to bring his range to zero. And at that range, he has nowhere to run himself and must instead weather whatever assault their target brings to bear.

[weka]

Nice example indeed of entirely missing the point I was making.

[Dark Spark]

The point you were making was that, because all combat is about killing before getting killed, then the many different methods to accomplish that goal really have no distinct differences from each other. That's incorrect.

[weka]

No, that was only 1/2 the point that I was making. I realise that you may not accept it, but the fact is that I am more aware than you of what point I was making.

I think at this point I pref to just accept that it would appear that neither of us are fully communicating our ideas to each other.

[Deandra]

Ladies, if I may be so bold as to offer my understanding of the points weka and Dark Spark were making:

DS: playing a rogue and playing a warrior are fundamentally different. Like a rogue, warriors must use strategy and planning, and avoid taking excessive hits, but the fact that they use stealth and are usually not hit at all makes all the difference.

weka: playing a rogue and playing a warrior are similar in some ways. Like a rogue, warriors must use strategy and planning, and avoid taking excessive hits, and their differences are simply questions of magnitude and not a fundamental difference.

You both seem to agree on the facts, and disagree about whether or not the similarities and differences in two playstyles are enough to say that they are distinct. You're both intelligent and experienced players, and there's no need for snide remarks--leave those to me

[The Tourist]

[puts on a stab-vest & straps down a combat helmet... ]

My greatest of warrior characters - the mighty Agesilaus Champion of Cyrodiil with ties to the Dark Brotherhood, thrice expelled from the Fighters Guild (it was all just POLITICS, man... and me killing a few Fighters Guild nomarks... - always used stealth. Almost all combat, unless you're insane, involves stealth. The point of 'combat' is to use the environ in context of your capabilities to attain the upper hand.

Unless you're an Orc or Nord barbarian with an admirable Kligon-like disposition to martial 'honour', then all combat requires both aspects of covert and overt action.

I've never simply gone down into a den of nasties strolling defiantly with my claymore proudly aloft (possibly whistling a jaunty tune). You sneak to reduce your profile and stick to the shadows. All at once you assess the positions of your foes, and without further thinking you decide on the first contact. If it'ss a room with a few nasties? Then it's 'on', so to speak - unless you can take down those skirting the potential melee-contact zone.

Once the main antagonists are downed, you check for exits/entries - making sure this engagement is over and preparing for further 'boundry' contacts, before advancing. Heck, that gameplay dynamic is the core element of most FPS's... (Halo & Ob have their similiarities after all)

I'm not entirely sure if I have an actual point; but stealth always plays a part. Unless you REALLY don't want it to.

[Deandra]

stealth always plays a part. Unless you REALLY don't want it to.

Unless you play a mage, when sneaking just slows down your process of destroying crowds of people in 2 or 3 casts

[Jeff]

Here you go Weka, you can borrow this one for a while...

[Yanri]

I like Monkeypants. There, i said it.

But honestly, i love playing as a Hand-to-Hand pure. Its such as great feeling you get when you're rolling through the shadows of an Ale-lid ruin and doing that cool little crouch-jab... But i love summoning SI Replete Shambles! i'm so undecided... or am i...?

Anyway, Sneak and Conjuration make an interestingly retarted custom class.

[Serrated]

An educational conversation, indeed. Still, one thing is missing; block. Though not similar to actually dodging, the principle is still the same - not getting hit at all. Whilst Warriors are often percieved as non-strategic, Assassins can be too. A master of Sneak and Blade can just waltz in there and sneak attack anyone within sight, too. Warriors; long distance strategies? Blocking, dodging power-blows, keeping your blade in range, but you out of theirs. Strategically incompetent? Not in the least.

And, hell, I haven't even started about enemies in packs. Keeping track of 10+ enemies all at once? Try the Siege on Kvatch mission at level 40+, and then get back to me.

Finally, though I am a stealth oriented player myself. The greatest challenge I've had is with character I've spoken of. But this is exactly the point we're all trying to make: I find this type of character hard to play?"

[Yanri]

Oh Dear God! Serrated, help me! there are Xivilai everywhere!

You're right though: It is difficult trying to play a tactical character (especially Stealth orientated) when you're forced into situations like Kvatch. You cant help but leaping out between daedra with a Dai-Katana...

[Jeff]

Actually, I did mention something similar in the "Arena Fighting Style" topic.

Whilst first starting to play, the typical "Charge Ahead Swinging madly" appraoch works. It is simple, and efficient. However, as I've learned the game more, I've learned to use all of the Skills, and their respective perks.

I remember how I could not relate to how some people could have a long 1 hour battle. It is so much easier to hack everyone to bits in a mad fury. After a while, that tends to get old.

Then I started using the skills, and their perks. Block, wait, stun strike... Acrobatics, reverse roll, wait, revers power strike... Then add to it, playing on Max Difficulty. I find myslef enjoying the long drawn out battles. Especially the ones with multiple opponents. The tension building, because I was lured out of position, hit from the rear, and knocked down. Hoping to be able to get back up before being slain. There is a certain satisfaction of finally finishing it off, and going "Whew, that was almost it". Add to it the worry of having your Aromor or Weapon reaching Zero Health, or running out of Enchanment Charges.

This I actually find hard to do, as I tend to play more Turn Based Statagy, RTS, & RPG type games. The adding of the more "Combat" style to Oblivion is (was) new for me. I do not play FPS/Mortal Combat learn the right moves type play very well. Which is why I enjoy playing this way. It is challenging (for now).

Most likely, I will play my next Character, totally different. Maybe a Stealth Mage? Not Sneak Attack, which doesn't work with Magic, but a sneak in, and get out un-noticed type approach.

[Dark Spark]

I'll admit, me lumping melee combatants as fast action characters and ranged attackers as strategic characters is oversimplifying the matter. But players who are new to the game (or rather, new to the genre) will gravitate towards either specialization's more tantalizing lights.

Experienced players can take their skills and knowledge to warp the status quo, to make the unseemly setups and styles work (and have fun while at it). Since everyone does become experienced in time, that truth becomes the more common state of things.

[Serrated]

Actually, I did mention something similar in the "Arena Fighting Style" topic.

You did. At first I never thought much of warrior characters, as I assumed they would be to simple. A few months ago, I made this warrior character spoken of a few posts above, and found myself with a lack of pleasurable gameplay. I assumed it simply to be to simple for me. It gave me to much of a hack 'n' slash feel. So I tried what you spoke of, and found more pleasure in both gameplay and roleplaying. Though I love the stealth approach still, I found the things I learned as a warrior also applied to some aspects of my stealth character.

I observed, experimented and learned.

[Coulsonji]

I normally like 2rd person hack and slash games. Adventure ones. Like Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy.

But then I played Oblivion and Halo and now I love FPS.

My style is hack and slash sadly...

[shadowchao]

I usually play as a stealth character, mages are fun too. I've yet to try a warrior character as I'm unsure what skills/race to use for him. I haven't tried conjuration either, which I think I'm going to do today when I start my new mage(didn't like my current one).