Don't put maneuvers behind rage please

[MagicManICT]

Is there any real reason bloodlust and Death or Glory have to be put behind rage?

All combat stances need to be taken out of the other skills and there just needs to be a line of combat related skills that do nothing else. It's not like players can't easily afford them.

[Headchef]

-1, knowing that someone is using these rightfully powerful stances, ensures the attacker he has found someone with rage instead of casual player.

Yes because I know when I have rage I too always wander around using my death or glory/bloodlust decks.

The maneuevers are also both good in combat so to have people walking in fights without rage skill but with these maneuevers would also be dumb.

Would you take the same stance if powerful maneuver was created exclusively for players that chose not to get rage? You can still die without rage so because you’re the one taking the risk to aggro first means you should get access to abilities giving you a significant advantage over others in combat? When you go out to hunt players you are prepared with the correct deck and equipment, have backup and are prepared to attack, fight and kill the players you come across. When I go out it’s probably not with the intent to kill a player and I don’t have soldiers at my side and you’re telling me because I may not have a certain skill I deserve to be at a disadvantage.

Knowing whether someone has it or not of course affects your willingness to go for the ko because playing risky yourself (risk death) just to take some guy his gear is not worth

Don’t want to take that risk? Don’t buy rage, don’t attack players expecting to be able to easily differentiate between those you can rock and those who are gonna turn around and fuck on you. Get good.

Yes that does indeed mean you should get access to abilities giving an advantage.
Risking your life vs being a casual hunter risking gear alone in 95%+ of the times is indeed way more risky for the attacker.

It is not about taking the risk whether you can differentiate between them ''who you can rock'' it's most about just to identify who in a group fight is aggro'ing himself or just running allowing waiting to be aggro'd while not having rage themselves.

[Kaios]

Every player risks their character when they go out, it doesn’t really matter if you have rage or not if you still don’t intend to aggro players randomly. Either way every player needs to be able to aggro if they want to reliably defend their village or allies. To think of rage as a skill only made for attackers is foolish, you should know quite well that this is not the case when it comes to any criminal action in this game.

I find it rather ridiculous that you don’t realize the hypocrisy in defending this but criticizing players for attempting to even the playing field regarding other suggestions.

I’ve already expressed that the removal of permadeath in this game based on such arbitrary measures is stupid and having a skill that is required to both attack and defend also be the skill that determines whether or not you can be killed makes zero sense to me. The devs need to stop being so wishy-washy when it comes to dying, either have permadeath or don’t but this situation of buy rage skill if you want to participate in pvp and die or don’t and also probably die anyways is just annoying me. Having important combat moves or maneuvers locked behind such a skill is also quite annoying.

I don’t know why anyone thinks you should be able to differentiate between a rage and non-rage player though, that’s gotta be one of the strangest requests I’ve ever heard from a pvp player. In a group fight unless you are trying to assist someone specifically you’re pretty much aggroing the guys closest to you and going after them whether or not they have rage, make it so you can tell if they don’t and then why the fuck would you ever aggro them at all knowing they can’t aggro you first, all that does is give you an even bigger advantage than you already had because you are obviously going to go after the players with rage first while the other guys run around with their dicks in their hands.

Combat is retarded.

[wonder-ass]

not risking character what a joke its fucking easy to kill people with out rage stop making bullshit excuses to keep an obv broken advantage over people that just wanna hermit and not buy rage.

[Lyrroth]

balance it by giving some good defensive innocent card that is exchanged for rage. requiring lawspeaking to unlock it.

[Ozzy123]

balance it by giving some good defensive innocent card that is exchanged for rage. requiring lawspeaking to unlock it.

ever heard of oak stance?

[eliminoid]

balance it by giving some good defensive innocent card that is exchanged for rage. requiring lawspeaking to unlock it.

ever heard of oak stance?

I wasnt aware that you lose the ability to use oak stance by purchasing rage...

[Hrenli]

I don't see why that particular instance of fun should be restricted to criminals/soldiers.

But what farmers need those for? Fighting carrots?

[Necroliter]

There is a fair bit of PvE content, even if this is an unpopular (at least on forum) opinion. I`d enjoy using DoG in dungeons, where it can fuel moves like Storm of Swords vs multiple enemies. Not all combat is about PvP.
And not every fighter wants to engage in PvP.

[MagicManICT]

I don't see why that particular instance of fun should be restricted to criminals/soldiers.

But what farmers need those for? Fighting carrots?

Clearly. Farmers are getting ran over by vegetables this world.