That looks interesting.  I love cc classes.  I hope there are useful summons for a wizard.  I would love to replicate the LotRO lore-master in D&D.

Bah, I hope my download link unlocks soon.  I've been good and forgot about it and now I just had to check again.

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Many of you need to get your head on straight.  Number one, this game is being made by Cryptic to start with, name me one game they have made that is decent, oops, right, not one.  Secondly Cryptic is owned by PW which loves item shops where you have to gamble for powerups(ie, basically a game of chance).  Thirdly, this game with be f2p, hence an active item shop.  

Getting your hopes up for this game is not a good idea.  Better to be pleasently surprised if they actually make a playable game, than thinking this will be the next best thing.   Personally, I think there are a lot better games coming down the pike than this one.

Actually, I'm one of the guys that actually likes STO.  I also have dabbled in Champions and don't really see a big problem with it.  Maybe they didn't live up to expectations at launch, but as for STO, it's actually an enjoyable game.  The cash shop isn't pay to win at all.  There's nothing in there that's game breaking.  The only thing that they do that could be considered a money sink is selling keys to open "mystery box" loot drops.  But, for being F2P I don't think that's outside the realm of acceptable.  From my perspective, it's you who needs to get your head on straight.  From my perspective Cryptic games aren't the garbage trolls make them out to be and PW didn't ruin anything when they bought Cryptic.  If anything, they gave them the cash for dev time they needed to start getting things right.

As suspected this game looks like a piece of crap in fine wrapping.

Much like the last "class" video this looks like garbage. Looks like a console crossover mulitplayer rpg and not like an MMO.

"Control Wizard" in D&D terms is ridiculous if it is a fixed class. Part of the charm of a wizard is that you could customize the playstyle as you wanted. If you wanted to be a "control" wizard you simply picked spells suitable for that purpose.

Neverwinter is looking more and more like garbage and I see less and less reason to even try it out.

I've been playing D&D pen and paper since the late 80s, and also Dungeons & Dragons Online for quite some time just to give some background to my judgement of this game.

To me, this game embodies much of what is wrong with the MMO genre the last 8 years.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Are you trying to be funny? While the class names in old AD&D may sound simplistic they carry a lot more versatility then what this game is showing.

Anyone got any insider tips on how many classes there's going to be and what they are yet?

There's at least one cleric class (as indicated by the pokket interview) other than that the slate appears blank.  

Originally posted by Aranisus
Hmm... look's like playing wizard in party will be really borring - left mouse button and afk.

Nah no matter what the class it'll be a very mobile game. Ala GW2 if you stand still for too long and don't use your dodge or utility skills you get minced. Other than that, yes, it may just well be. 

simple and straight to the point. it is something pretty intresting to see every now and then

way better than something like "disciple of the metaspace arcanism" or something like that

Originally posted by Ozmodan
Control Wizard?  Geez get someone with at least a little bit of imagination on your staff.  What a terrible name.  Is this an example of what the entire game is going to be about?  The more I read about this game the less I like.  

 

simple and straight to the point. it is something pretty intresting to see every now and then

way better than something like "disciple of the metaspace arcanism" or something like that

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Did I push one of your buttons?  You don't think it's childish, I do.  I never attack people for their opinions, but only if they are lying about the facts.  What is with the fluffy attack and I certainly didn't come off as cranky, but whatever.  At least games like EQ and GW2 had the decency to give their control classes interesting names like Enchanter and Mesmer.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Did I push one of your buttons?  You don't think it's childish, I do.  I never attack people for their opinions, but only if they are lying about the facts.  What is with the fluffy attack and I certainly didn't come off as cranky, but whatever.  At least games like EQ and GW2 had the decency to give their control classes interesting names like Enchanter and Mesmer.

So how is the control wizard childish?  Like I said a bit mundane, but how is it childish?  Both your and that blue text posters opinions sound overly critical in a nitpicky fashion and, yes, the tone of your post does sound cranky.  GW, EQ, and EQ2 having interesting or exotic names has nothing to do with the D&D name being childish.  So are you going to answer any of my earlier questions or just be put out?

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Did I push one of your buttons?  You don't think it's childish, I do.  I never attack people for their opinions, but only if they are lying about the facts.  What is with the fluffy attack and I certainly didn't come off as cranky, but whatever.  At least games like EQ and GW2 had the decency to give their control classes interesting names like Enchanter and Mesmer.

So how is the control wizard childish?  Like I said a bit mundane, but how is it childish?  Both your and that blue text posters opinions sound overly critical in a nitpicky fashion and, yes, the tone of your post does sound cranky.  GW, EQ, and EQ2 having interesting or exotic names has nothing to do with the D&D name being childish.  So are you going to answer any of my earlier questions or just be put out?

If my tone seems cranky, then yours sounds outright angry.  Like I said, I must have pushed one of your many hot buttons.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Did I push one of your buttons?  You don't think it's childish, I do.  I never attack people for their opinions, but only if they are lying about the facts.  What is with the fluffy attack and I certainly didn't come off as cranky, but whatever.  At least games like EQ and GW2 had the decency to give their control classes interesting names like Enchanter and Mesmer.

So how is the control wizard childish?  Like I said a bit mundane, but how is it childish?  Both your and that blue text posters opinions sound overly critical in a nitpicky fashion and, yes, the tone of your post does sound cranky.  GW, EQ, and EQ2 having interesting or exotic names has nothing to do with the D&D name being childish.  So are you going to answer any of my earlier questions or just be put out?

If my tone seems cranky, then yours sounds outright angry.  Like I said, I must have pushed one of your many hot buttons.

So does this mean you don't want to answer the questions or explain the childish comment?

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vorthanion
An area attack that punches icicles from the ground up and they call it Ice Storm?  Gotta say, that's the first time I've ever seen the term storm applied to something that has no atmospheric origin.  I also agree with Ozmodan, the nomenclature for the classes sound childish at best.

Are you beinig a bit nitpicky cranky?  Early D&D and AD&D had really simplistic class names as well.  Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Ranger, Druid.  They made fluffier names for later editions.  Were you looking for fluffy?  How is Control Wizard childish?  A bit mundane possibly, but childish?  It's not like you proably can't make up your own name for your style.  I did that for my RIFT builds.

Did I push one of your buttons?  You don't think it's childish, I do.  I never attack people for their opinions, but only if they are lying about the facts.  What is with the fluffy attack and I certainly didn't come off as cranky, but whatever.  At least games like EQ and GW2 had the decency to give their control classes interesting names like Enchanter and Mesmer.

So how is the control wizard childish?  Like I said a bit mundane, but how is it childish?  Both your and that blue text posters opinions sound overly critical in a nitpicky fashion and, yes, the tone of your post does sound cranky.  GW, EQ, and EQ2 having interesting or exotic names has nothing to do with the D&D name being childish.  So are you going to answer any of my earlier questions or just be put out?

If my tone seems cranky, then yours sounds outright angry.  Like I said, I must have pushed one of your many hot buttons.

So does this mean you don't want to answer the questions or explain the childish comment?

Dude, I don't have to justify my opinions to you, get a grip.