Nexon doesnt understand Maplestory and RPG lore

I posted this before but for some reason it's glitched and I can't open the link.

Semi-scientific approach and explanation on why Nexon is wrong about Angelic Busters and other classes.

I've said this before...that Angelic Busters just don't feel like a pirate class. I argue about this a lot, mostly in jest...just having fun and joking. Then I thot it would be even more amusing to lay out my argument in super specific detail because that always gets the weirdos worked up.

As everyone knows...I love to post huge walls of text. So I wanted this to be no different.


Apparently Nexon doesn't understand pirates. Or rpg's. They created Angelic Busters but were too dumb to even know what they made. Angelic Busters are mages insofar as life is concerned. We don't physically strike anything. Our attacks are essentially, obviously...and exclusively...summons. There is nothing in our backstory that in anyway follows ANY pirate based story, theme or archetype. We cannot steal anything whatsoever without circumventing the in game interface (and the game itself as a distinct entity [by manually logging into other people's accounts.]) Our personalities are not based on pirates in any way. And we're gender locked as females. This isn't that bad on its own - but in the context of the rest of that stupidity its relevant to consider since its amusingly stupid.

Now I will belabour this point and talk it into the ground by explaining the minutiae behind my thoughts as painstakingly endlessly as I possibly can while still making my point AND trolling people.

We have zero (4) strength. Yes, we have dex...however, that point only further illustrates Nexon's mistakes wrt AB's. The archetypal role of dexterity in an RPG is a combination of agility and resourcefulness. A pure assessment and evaluation of damage is that damage is proportional to strength, explaining the direct relation between, presumably, muscle and force as applied to a melee weapon. However, optimizing the physics behind force allows for a more complicated image of physics based (read: not magical) damage. By being resourceful the attacker can hone a smaller amount of pure dedicated strength by the resourceful design of, and use of, 'tools.' The step from a 'damage range' as dictated by innate strength to a 'damage range' augmented by other qualities such as resourcefulness and talent/agility is the step from 'melee' to 'ranged' attacks. The distinction here being not distance between attacker and victim, but of degrees where 1 degree of variable between innate 'strength' and resulting damage represents melee, and any meaningful increase in the number of intervening degrees corresponds to ranged damage.

Note: this is not a purely mathematical/physics based notion. For example: in a sword the transference of force from muscle to impact isn't purely proportional where f=ma. Actually, with a sword you can argue that surface geometry, angle of swing, etc, have more relevance to the resulting force of impact. If your weapon, however, is a baseball bat then the assessment of relevant variables has next to nothing to do with that of a sword. In a very generalized and simplified way, the complexity comes from determining the variables and their (still varying) interrelation behind the accounting for momentum. As mentioned this could be anything from blade geometry, blade material and density, number of blades and way in which a certain design stacks the odds in your favour insofar as optimizing the center of percussion for that weapon (the point on the weapon where the perpendicular impact produces perfectly oppositional translational and rotational forces, canceling each other out at the intended pivot point. This is important as it streamlines velocity at that pivot point and insures that, at that same pivot point, there will be no remaining post impulse movement. Throw in other typical melee weapons such as the morning star, etc, and the distinction between weapon terminology and science becomes even more convoluted - to say nothing of the relevance in applying distinctions such as that between the origination of the impulse in a 'throwing star' vs that in a bullet or arrow. My point is: on some level everything can be called both melee and ranged. Deciding what defines what falls short of being scientific and in the end is defined by general consensus.

In rpg's, that distinction tends to apply whether or not there is an application of one or more awkward notions of 'mechanical advantage.' Mechanical advantage, which is basically any mechanism that aims to multiply the base Force applied to an object, is a complicated issue insofar as an empirical assessment is concerned. A mechanical advantage seeks to multiply the base force applied to an object by first preserving all input and then amplifying a specific force by trading off other forces involved in the 'work' related to the applied load force and directing them as succinctly as possible to the intended load force. These tools, or machines, can be as simple as a wedge or a wheel n' axle (called 'simple machines' in physics) or used cumulatively (as a compound) and stacked on top of themselves endlessly into rube goldberg-esque machines that seek to use a specific applied force to do work on a single relevant load force. The interaction of multiple simple machines being designated as a 'compound machine.' However, compound machines are a bit too quantitative, subjective/interpretive and of questionable value/merit to the results they aim to achieve for it to be a straight up physics based empirical concept. But that distinction between the application of mechanical advantage and/or usage of machines to multiply force is basically where the line between melee and ranged is as consistent as possible. At least for a terminology that still hinges on a body of science/study that is almost always approached from the incorrect starting point (beginning not with math and then using applied physics, but by deducing itself into existence by essentially memorizing the specific results of every single experiment, good or bad, that either EVER HAPPENED or that the student can memorize. For some reason these people refuse to acknowledge trends in variables by identifying their associated patterns and extrapolating generalizations and theories...and they almost never deduce anything resembling a qualitative theory, let alone practicable unified theory. So they not only never mean what they say they mean - they prolly never even know what they meant either way, to say nothing of the resulting cumulative body of knowledge over the millenia. But I'm talking about Nexon being retarded, not these people.)

Back to the topic of dexterity: historically the distinction used to account for whether a build focuses on melee or ranged damage has been accounted for by constructing a new 'value', called dexterity. Dexterity tries its best to account for the complexities I mentioned earlier by working in tandem first with the strength stat, and then expressing the inherent differences by combining two concepts generally designated as agility and resourcefulness. Resourcefulness refers to the ability to use an essence beyond pure strength to creatively design weapons that seek to optimize the conversion of strength into force, etc, so that rather than being simply proportional they become multiplicative, even exponential relationships. To further allow for a class such as magic this had to be done with a specific statistic that is independent of magic. Since magic implies the magical creation of energy from nothing, at least nothing we can either measure or account for, there has to be a way to account for the ability of a machine to take a specific input of force and send it back out increased, even multiplied. The formula here is that all forces contained in existence = 1. The notion of magic supercedes this by creating forces that, somehow, don't effect the balance of this equation. So now we have strength = force, magic = force...and using dexterity, we can explain how a bow and arrow can work without creating or destroying any form of other words, without unbalancing the game. Balancing referring to the notion of the world as a formula that must always = 1 when all forces are accounted for. And agility, insofar as it is distinct from resourcefulness, can be summed up for ability and talent to use said weapon as well as run around, dodge, be athletic and introduce other variables that distinguish the class from melee based warriors.

So here we have it. Damage is the conversion of strength into force and damage output. When a class is not required to input any strength or force to receive damage as an output, this is called magic. To fit this into a game world, the value is represented as magic, or intelligence, and has nothing to do with strength beyond its role in balancing the world by forcing the player to pick one force or another, and preventing them from stacking those forces thereby making the idea of picking a class a meaningful facet of gameplay.

To make things a bit more interesting, and representative of the real world, accounting for things like guns, bows and arrows, throwing stars (??), etc, game developers applied what we now call 'ranged' damage. However, to both increase the number of playstyles and not unbalance the game, there had to be a way to distinguish one strength based form of damage from another without throwing off the equation pertaining energy in the world. Since there is now magic and strength the move was made to follow real life guidelines and put this new playstyle within the realm of a strength based form of energy. However, to make the class both relevant, unique and balanced, a third stat has to be employed to to account for damage that isn't directly proportional to strength, doesn't use magic, but still holds its own with both. Hence dexterity. Following this later on, attributes such as crit, sneak, surprise, speed, etc, all set to augment strength as a statistic to make different play throughs and classes possible. To a smaller degree this was done with magic as a force as well.

So basically Angelic Busters have a damage output that has no direct relation to their strength or to the weapon they're using. These weapons are not machines in the way a bow is or a gun is. The only way in which they are is because Nexon says they are. But Nexon holds absolutely no consistency between class archetypes and class titles. So yes, Angelic Busters are pirates. But they're pirates because Nexon says they are. They're pirates because that is how they're coded. But that sort of nonsense entirely negates the value of the game as a lore based story-ish role playing experience. If lore, which in rpgs is synonymous with everything from history to 'science', means nothing - then why is anything anything? And if nothing means anything with any consistency - why does it matter? Why should the players care for the story? It's no different than playing tic tac toe with yourself only rather than taking the time to find a piece of paper and pen - you just cut to the chase and say you won.

Also, pirates are 3d. Not 2d side scrolling people.

It's stupid and Nexon are stupid. That or they're autistic.

April 10, 2016

11 Comments • Newest first


@mattman2623: This is a good starting point:

Reply April 19, 2016

is their any website with maplestory lore? i would be interested in reading all the various storylines and plots of quests

Reply April 19, 2016

@piana: Complaints are always useful. It may not change the target...but if the complaint makes sense to someone else, its perhaps something which will reverberate around into effecting something else.

This is essentially the entire purpose of literary and film criticism, ala Harold Bloom, Camille Paglia, Terry Eagleton etc. Who's to say gaming doesn't deserve its own form?

Reply April 16, 2016 - edited

Kind of ironic how Maple's archetypal Magical Girl isn't a magician.

Reply April 16, 2016 - edited

@carbyken: The root problem with all of this, tho, is that Nexon just crammed things in and tried to make them fit...rather than being careful. In essence they painted themselves into a corner and rather than fix their mistake they removed the goalposts and said the corner never existed.

@piana: It's likely that it's brought out so many times - because I post about it so often. I have posted about this for years.

There's nothing wrong with gaming criticism. Criticism is a thriving subject. It doesn't necessarily have to have a lofty goal towards which it is aiming - it is there mostly for those seeking it expressly or to lay seeds of doubt/thought.

While this post was serious, I prefaced it clearly with:

Then I thot it would be even more amusing to lay out my argument in super specific detail because that always gets the weirdos worked up.


Reply April 15, 2016 - edited

nothing about buccaneers

posting this comment and leaving now, bye

Reply April 15, 2016 - edited

I actualy just read all of this. I have too much time.

Reply April 12, 2016 - edited

@rate: You got pretty far then. I read 'AshleyAttacked' and decided I was done reading.

Reply April 11, 2016 - edited

The angelic busters' damage output is directly affected not by magic or strength, but by money.

Reply April 11, 2016 - edited

Read 'Thot' and decided I was done reading.
You need help. Seek counseling.

Reply April 10, 2016 - edited

I feel this sort of issue also applies to Mechanics to some extent. While granted they do use heavy artillery (Most being related to guns), for some reason I feel like they should have a unique weapon as appose to just using a gun.

Jetts post revamp to some mild extent as well.

But really many oddball classes tend to just be... crud I forgot the word. >_> Designated? I don't know. Most are assigned as they are because they're probably similar to archetype! Although Angelic Busters are definitely an old school class, so much of the blame can really be placed on the guys who designed her. (If they're even still working there really.)

Reply April 10, 2016 - edited