Posted by Graatch on January 11, 2000 at 13:15:52:
In Reply to: Re: Not all discussions... posted by Saerin on January 11, 2000 at 10:49:28:
> > Not all discussions which highlight a problem (even a perceived problem) are "whining". > You haven't been just 'highlighting' a problem. You've posted your problem with the new I generally find your posts thoughtful and non-flamatory, but I take umbrage at your comments here. I pointed it out repeatedly in order to effect change, and to point out how *in fact* things were working for invokers. What's more, I specifically *did* suggest changes, alterations, renovations, modifications, and always do. In the example of berserkers, I suggested toning down area spellbane so it wouldn't bane everything. That is now the case. (I don't doubt Nepenthe, by the way, and it's certainly possible the imp was misinforming me, but it just didn't seem that way, and anecdotal evidence has borne out what I was told. That's all I can say about it, given I have no access to the code.) Moreover, as I said in the post which started this thread, this post was about people posting generally with negative comments about things implemented in the game. I simply used the rager change as a recent and recognizeable example, I did not intend, nor wish, to rehash it yet again. (The department of redundancy department. :P) > > There is value in both identifying and then publicizing something "wrong", or seemingly unreasonable, be it in the game of cf or anywhere else in life. > How many derrogatory statements did you make about the new rager powers? Quite a few Graatch. I was loud and active about my belief that some of the changes were unfounded and/or unnecessary. I still believe that ragers were very powerful before -- to say otherwise is to belittle the months and months where ragers dominated, thanks to players like bolechim, detlef, redik, etc etc etc. They didn't seem to need haste, area spellbane, and so forth, to kill masters and hold the head for weeks at a time -- and not in need of the enormous increase they got. Simply saying "You made derogatory comments" is both misleading and a bit insulting. > > Simply because comments are negative does not mean someone is "whining", or what have you. > But this does depend on the poster and way he goes about making his point > > I have no doubts some of you will have the urge to respond to this and insult me, flame me, whatever. Get over it. It's not personal, and it serves no purpose. Just move on and think about the subject of the post, not the poster. > I disagree. If the poster does reveal himself, how can you not take that There was relative parity before the changes. Plenty of ragers killed plenty of masters. I think you, and others of the "in-the-know" crowd, tend to think that everyone who rolls up a mage is going to get all the wands and rods, have a great suit of hp, know all the areas, be well versed in all the tactics, etc. The fact is quite the contrary, and most people who roll up a mage are not like that, and most do not have access to all that information and power and ability. What's more, I *do* believe in relative parity, and that's the point of my consistent statements in this area. Now, an invoker really doesn't have parity with a berserker rager. (Again, with the caveat that I was told there has been a bit of a tone down to the new powers since they were implemented, area spellbane to be specific, and I've seen a few spells go through now, though when it's two heros, only a few times). Before, a rager was able to kill a master one on one and vice versa. And it lots of ways, I might add. Assassins can (and did/do) literally walk up and kill you with assassinate, no matter what protections you have or clothing or whatever. If you happen to be caught without flight, a thief can and has/will double backstab you for half your health, if not more, and simply cheap shot you to death. Even if you *are* flying, with bind he can *still* do it. And these are just two ways. The warrior class has its own. Sure, it wasn't easy, but they didn't need haste and area spellbane before to do it and I don't think they need it now -- certainly not to the extent they have it. As I've said, area spellbane is not bad in and of itself, as long as there is a reasonable chance for some of your spells to go through. It is just way to efficient to myu mind. And remember, I've played ragers. Four (two heros.) All pre-changes. I killed and was killed. I've only had five masters, so it's not like I'm an "only Master" kind of guy. I've had chars of every class but one (druid) and every cabal but two (Troupe and Scarab. Though I had a guy tattooed by scara before it was a cabal.) I plan on playing ragers again in the future. And other cabals. But that doesn't mean I can't want them to be balanced better, in my opinion. > Never once did I hear you say that the changes were a good thing, and no longer For the three and a half years (96-99) that I played before the changes to ragers, there was alot of back and forth. There was alot of the pendulum swinging talk, and all that. Masters weren't simply rolling over ragers, or vice versa. And I didn't say all the changes were bad, in toto, no, I said they were implemented with too much efficiency, that the new things work too well and need to be toned down. To the extent that I want the game to be more fun and I think that would be the case with such a change, then yes, it's about me. But I believe it's for the better of the game. If I wanted only for myself, I'd have rolled up an air major on day one. Or a berserker on day one. Or any of the other obvious easy killing classes. I didn't. > IMHO, the new Battle powers were one of the best things to happen in the game for Changes are usually good. The method of change and the scale of it are where the problems come in. That's the case here.
> rager powers over and over in a manner that never gives a suggestion on how to change
> things but complains how difficult a time your character had with the changes.
> into account when reading the post. I see bitching and moaning about spellbane,
> and look to see the poster is Graatch/Diarmuid. I think to myself that he's played quite
> a few masters who have had the upper hand for a long time. Now that some parity
> has been introduced he's complaining about it. It seems quite selfish really.
> would Masters "roll over" Battle (question of competent players aside). It always
> seemed to be more about YOU and less about the game as a whole. Maybe I wouldn't
> have had that impression if this had been a live discussion.
> a long time.