Posted by Person on April 29, 2000 at 15:18:23:
In Reply to: Re: Some comments. posted by Ludi on April 29, 2000 at 09:38:05:
> 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?