Posted by Ludi on April 29, 2000 at 09:38:05:
In Reply to: Some comments. posted by Talton on April 29, 2000 at 07:13:50:
I'd have to agree here. Battle by far now has the better powers than
>masters. However, it could also be the fact that battleragers can now
>heal from scourge, and the fact that not having any magic isn't really
>that hard any more, considering the HUGE bonuses you get. I don't care
>if Ludi (ripping off a bard of mine's name incidentally, who I had for
>400 hours) has great gear, or any of the other Battleragers, spellbane
>shouldn't be working that much, and area spellbane should be toned down
>hugely.
Frankly, anyone who bitches that I ripped of their name probably doesn't
even deserve a response. What earthly reason would I have to steal a
name from a char I've seen before? His name comes from the book, "The
Glass Bead Game (Magister Ludi)" by Hermann Hesse. Lame, maybe. Stolen?
no. Who cares? Just you.
>I don't care what spells do, or if sleep lasts for 13 hours or hold
>lasts a huge ass long time (from what everyone tells me it's really ass
>hard to land now) I just know ragers consistently do better not because
>they "work together". hell, it's because of them ganging people they get
>great gear in the first place half the time. Is there not a law against
>parity, or are the Immortals of Battle just blind to that? You've got
>great gear, guys, so why not show us what skills you have and instead of
>jumping people like you do (3 on 1 or whatever) try being selective of
>who you jump.
Quite frankly, you seem to not know anything. Know what else is hard?
Laggging a mage out until he dies. The falcon in this log dies for who
knows what reason. It's not that hard to fly away. You sit here
bitching about us jumping on people three on one when I just posted a log
of 2 of us, chosing to raid against 4 people, that turned into against 5.
To be honest, any 4 masters in my range except these could have done
bettter. Two necromancers without zombies, a mage without duo, hold or a
shape, and the weakest air major I've ever fought. I'm sure Manshoon
could post a log of him as a mongoose and say, a conjurer killing or
driving off 4 fully prepared ragers. But, a bard can tool Manshoon
without breaking a sweat. It doesn't mean any of those are overpowered.
>e.g. Battlerager thinks to himself "I need gear."
>Battlerager sees randomWarrior.
>Battlerager whacks randomWarrior.
The tablet doesn't say "only kill masters." We can kill whoever we want,
be it because they're dwarves and you're a duergar, you're good, they're
evil, etc. I do know any attack like that at unfair odds is the end of
said rager in battle. I welcome all the "randomwarriors" I've wacked for
armor to post and tell me how unfair I am. I don't kill random people,
and I doubt anyone can say otherwise. Assuming I remember you, I'll tell
you why you died. You seem to have "heard" and "been told" a lot of
stuff, but it sounds like you've not actually played any of the things
you're complaining about.
>It almost seems to argue: If Battleragers are walking around in record
>numbers, and doing very well without magic, what hindrance is no magic
>for them?
No magic is no hindrence against enemies that don't know how to get
magical items to keep themselves alive. In that case, of course a rager
can kick your ass effortlessly, just like a warrior who can get
shield/stone/haste/fly/etc can assbeat you. I suspect you're one of
those people, and therefore find it all just so unfair. Please, play a
rager warrior at hero. Or play one at 35 right now. There are far more
masters and imperials under hero range than villagers. Play one at 40
and take on all those spectres you seem to think are weak and couldn't
get a sleep through spellbane for anything.
>difference). Now, I've played a summoner before many times, and I can
>tell you that with great saves it's really hard to summon someone 4
>ranks above you, like Ludi is. Why did they take anti-paladins out of
>Masters anyway, to make the Masters weaker? Like, come on. If you're
>going to completely assassinate a cabal,
>
>A) take away their tanks so all they've got is mages (which doesn't seem
>like much, given that great players still do very well with Masters, but
>it is - fire anti-paladin masters did really well).
>
>B) Give them a leader that doesn't induct too much since he's fighting
>all the tine. Give them heroes that can't interview too often because
>more often than not, they're always retrieving. Another reason to
>Master's really bad numbers. I don't hack the heroes, honestly. I think
>they're doing a great job as players. But I do think Masters needs some
>firepower and they're not getting it.
What is your point? That saves matter? That armor matters? That a guy
who knows how to go find save spell and wear it, giving up +hp or +stat
armor in exchange should be summoned 9 out of 10 times? Being a spectre
sucks for going against heros, but the rewards of liching, if you make
it, are huge. You have to suffer to gain. Next, you complain about
master's powers because they don't have A-P's to tank?! Have you not
seen a conjurer with an archon, or a shaped muter? Conjurers get parry
and shield block, the same as A-P's, even without the archon healing.
Maybe not the same hp, but they get far more mana, which comes through in
transform. You can't sit and complain that cabal x needs new powers
because the current leader isn't around enough for your tastes. Things
always go up and down. Guess what, ragers is the only cabal that demands
their players go and get the head back, even if it means likely death. I
promise you the master heros are not raiding the village every 5 minutes
when we have the orb. If they don't talk to you, they're ignoring you.
>Some suggestions on reforming Battle's powers:
>
>A) Make ripostes and backfists unable to be deathblowed. Every spell
>effect Masters have can be avoided, it's time to balance the field there
>by doing the same thing for Ragers. An annihilate pillar may hurt, but
>it can be spellbaned. An annihilate deathblow backfist cannot.
>
>B) Tone down area spellbane! It's really, really nice as it is right now
>and there's little people playing mages can do if every spell seems to
>be spellbaned then the rager gets a free round of attacks. Alternatively
>make it so that the rager no longer gets that free round of attacks, and
>spellbane's damage could be upped some, however work less.
>
>C) Make it so that ragers have clearly defined roles. Make it so that if
> they step out of those roles they get punished.
>
>Some ideas:
>
>Berserkers:
>
>Make it so that berserkers have to stay bloodthirsted 90% of the time.
>To compensate, let berserker ragers drink blood (which would quench 1/2
>of their thirst) and eat body parts for thirst/hunger. Admittedly, this
>can get tiresome, but it's a tradeoff. You get what you play for. I also
>do not believe assassins or thieves should be allowed this, since they
>are sneaking around constantly and their skills would much suit battle
>better if they were scouts.
>
>Classes: Bards, Warriors, Rangers.
How you can think thirsting 90% of the time is a fair trade for our
powers is beyond me. Please, make a rager and try that out. Aparently
you think a monkey could get in and a monkey could pk zorszaul with said
rager, show us all how it's done.
Why would bards, a class that relies on sneaking and singing things to
sleep as a primary way of winning battles, or a ranger that relies on
snares and ambushes, be forced to thirst 90% of the time, attacking
anything they saw? You should thank the gods every time a warrior choses
to be a defender, not wish they were forced to be a berserker. You might
think DB backfist is ungodly, but play an assassin and realize it takes a
free hand, giving up shield block or another weapon. It also means as a
berserker you have no way to avoid faerie fog, scourge, nasty other
spells unless you're actively thirsting, which means no strangle, no
assassinate, no picking a target. These things are not small sacrifices.
>Scouts should be scouts. They should remain hidden and camouflaged most
>of the time to most ragers, and not be warriors or bards. There's a
>reason for this, if scouts are to be hidden, they should have the skills
>to compensate.
Now rangers are supposed to be scouts? I'm confused.
>They could also have their own cabal channel through Battle's village (I
>don't know if this has already been implemented) to talk.
We're not empire. We don't fight it out scouts vs. berserkers. We help
each other for a common goal. Why would scouts want their own channel?