Combat System - Player Input Wanted!

[Sarvis]

Actually, mages were allowed to rock in AD&D because of casting times and the fact that one hit would disrupt the spell. Most mages should be able to target their spells without hitting their friends... at least in the beginning before the battle is fully joined. But with a powerful mage battle normally doesn't get that far.

Back to the mud:

Was thinking... this sort of goes along with Ragorn's stat increase theory (which I agree with.) Now, doesn't the spellsave work like ad&D? For instance you roll against the number and if you make it you take half damage from the spell? or in a mobs case possible shrug the spell? It would be better if each spellsave point took a percentage out of the damage you'd take from a spell instead. For instance if you have -10 spellsave and got hit with a lightning bolt tat would do normally 100 damage, it only does 90 damage.
One big advantage to this is that it would be easier to balance spells out against mobs. For istance a Tanar'ri might have a -90 spellsave, while a Gythyanki might only have -40. This way 'vokers could be better in certain situations than hitters, and hitters better than 'vokers in others. Even within a zone things could be varied enough so that you'd want both along. Maybe you are fighting a Baalor, who summons in some Erinyes... the Baalor would be taking very little damage from the spells but the Erinyes would be getting slaughtered by incendiary clouds.

Rho: None of us want hitters to be the top damage dealers, we want it made so that we can be seen as a viable option against a nuker. The suggestions for spells giving affects rather than ungodly damage were very good, and would have left 'vokers wanted and needed while making hitters more necessary for actually finishing the mobs off. I have rolled a 'voker. It was kind of fun to play one, but I'm a ranger at heart and, as such, always play my ranger more than my other characters. I shouldn't have to play any certain class in order to be included in groups and zoning so that I can get the most out of this mud. And don't give me that argument about leading myself... it's getting tired.

Sarvis, Who has been doing too much leading lately in other realms.

[cherzra]

One request which I suspect has already been mentioned, but I'll post it anyway.


I think we all agree that the old way of the first 90% of a fight consisting of 'barely scratches' sucks, and it would be better if it were damage based.

Let's say the max attainable damage is 8d4 with a 80 damageroll (twilight proc). The minimum would be 1. Then the scale of damage might be 1-100 (yeah I rounded it off to 100 because there will never be many twilights). If you hit for 10 damage, you will get 'barely scratches'. 40 damage is 'hits' 60 damage is 'very hard', 70 'awesome slash makes X gasp' etc etc, just some examples.

Now suppose you play a warrior with a 4d5 2hnd sword and a 25 damageroll. Best you could get is 20+25 = 50 damage, toss in an extra 15 or so odd damage from a crit hit = 65.

Etc etc. You get the point, this would be much nicer than the stupid 'barely scratches' the first 90 rounds and 'X is nearly slaughtered by Y's awesome slash' the remaining 10 rounds, making it so you could actually see who hits hard, who doesn't, overall more fun!

Cherzra

[Artmar]

Do we all agree, Chezra?

IIRC the current fight message system (dam percentage based) has been changed from standart Diku (damage value based) as a result of players' input. Personally I prefer it as it is now (would hate to see tons of staggers and enshrouds on first several rounds of tough combat)

Maybe actual message could be changed (say, to 'barely wound' or sth like that). It could also be changed to incorporate both ideas (I believe I've seen it once on Duris) - 'You barely wound ... with your powerful slash.'.

Just my 0.02$

Artmar Whiteraven

[Nilan]

You goodies had assassins too
you just never liked to make use of their talents in group situations.

Nilan

[Sarvis]

*comfort Nilan* I'd have been more likely bring you along if I knew I wouldn't find yer dagger in my back.


Now for something I forgot to post before... Was thinking about how enchanters basically get screwed for exp because their spells can't get them damage exp like vokers or healing exp like clerics. So how about hasted exp? Add a variable to the player struct then save the person who casts a haste spell in that variable. Then make it so that when the person who has been hasted does damage the enchanter also gets exp for that damage, or maybe a percentage of it. Add in a check to make sure they are in the same group to prevent twinkiness.

Hmm... well on a dual wielding ranger you get two extra attacks per round while hasted right? For a total of 5... so the enchanter should get .4 times the exp that the ranger gets for each hit. The ranger would still get the full amount though, but this would be easier than trying to calculate the exp on just two of the hits probably.

It could be argued that after the enchanter casts the spell why would he gain exp from it. But it would be more difficult to give the enchanter exp for just casting the spell, since one would have to calculate how much damage that would add based on the hitters weapons and damroll or something, and that might not come out exact... and would be harder to code. This still gives the 'chanter the exp he's earned for his contribution to the group, and will probably make them very very happy... and more likely to keep haste up on the hitters rather than trying to get one of his weak little damage spells off. *grin*

Sarvis

[cherzra]

Well Artmar, let's be realistic, if we assume the damage scale I mentioned above, how many people will be doing over 50 damage? Standard damroll is something like 25, and standard weapons are like 3d4..

Witha 50 damroll being 'hits hard' and a 70 being 'staggers from your fearsome slash', we won't really be seeing much of those except for people with twilights and 40 damroll The majority will still be 'scratches' 'barely hits' 'hits' etc.

[Jegzed]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>I think we all agree that the old way of the first 90% of a fight consisting of 'barely scratches' sucks, and it would be better if it were damage based.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No we do NOT.

Changing the combat messages will make this mud MUCH harder. It will be impossible to be a fast stoner/cleric and you would be totally without stone/heal if you are not the designated tank in a combat.

The only reason you hitter-guys want messages changed is because you think it looks cooler.

So how the fuck am I gonna notice that someone is getting beaten on harsly and react in a split second if all hits are hitting something hard.

The messages are based on a percent of how many HP a pc/npc loses compared to how many it has.

Sure, we could make a lot of bot-scripts to autoglance all members in a group each tick and stone if no stone.. (but thats kinda gay and illegal isn't it?)

Put it this way, I wouldn't even roll an enchanter if messages got changed to you guys proposals. I'd play a hitter and whine like mad cause stoners can't identify who is hit hard.

/Jegzed who hates basternae's hitting messages.

[cherzra]

Dude you need to chill. If you go back and re-read what I said, you will see that it is a proposal for PC vs MOB damage, not the other way around. Secondly, unless you are wielding 8d4 +50 damageroll, almost all hits will still be 'scratches' 'hits' etcetera.

[Jegzed]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
Dude you need to chill. If you go back and re-read what I said, you will see that it is a proposal for PC vs MOB damage, not the other way around. Secondly, unless you are wielding 8d4 +50 damageroll, almost all hits will still be 'scratches' 'hits' etcetera.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I read your post.. Please read my again..
What I and many other stoners/clerics look at, is the "hit HARD/VERY HARD etc". Those almost ONLY come when a mob hits a !stoned pc, cause they are when you lose 5-25% of hp in a hit.

If I group with lets say Blung, Cherzra and Zogur as hitters in a zone.

This is what it looks like for me.

Blung barely slashes a braxat.
Blung barely slashes a braxat.
Blung barely slashes a braxat.
Cherzra barely slashes a braxat.
Cherzra barely slashes a braxat.
Cherzra slashes a braxat.
A braxat hits Cherzra hard.
A braxat hits Cherzra very hard!
Zogur barely pounds a braxat.
Zogur pounds a braxat.
Zogur barely pounds a braxat.
etc..
(Very nice and easy to discover pc's getting hit hard) (Even easier with gagging barely's)

Here is how it might look with the new thing.

Blung slashes a braxat extremely hard.
Blung slashes a braxat very hard.
Blung slashes a braxat extremely hard.
Cherzra slashes a braxat hard.
Cherzra slashes a braxat hard.
Cherzra slashes a braxat.
A braxat hits Cherzra hard.
A braxat hits Cherzra very hard!
Zogur pounds a braxat hard.
Zogur pounds a braxat very hard.
Zogur barely pounds a braxat.

Sorry dude for being harsh, but this is among the worst downgrade proposed for the mud I've heard.

The best thing about Sojourn is that the messages are based on the percent of health lost to the one hit.

/Jegzed

[cherzra]

Ok, I understand now, I thought you meant something else. This would be bad for casters indeed. Maybe it could be a toggle then, just like terse?

toggle damage - this toggle either displays the old damage messages, or new 'damage' based messages...

just a thought

[Waelos]

Jegzed -

Um, if your target is stoned, won't it always be 'barely scratched' no matter what the system is, and if it is NOT stoned, you'll see the 'hard' 'very hard' messages? If anything I think it would help you discover who was unstoned _faster_ because you will see the very hard messages immediately (if they're coming on 50 dam instead of 25% of someone's hps).

I think it would be harder on clerics. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it has logical application.

Summation:

Stoned targets are always 'barely' hit.

Old system: unstoned targets get 'hard' hits when they lose a % of their hps.

New system: unstoned targets get 'hard' hits anytime they take over X damage.

Seems it is just a minor leap in association from 'oh shit, he's gonna die better stone' to 'hrm, better stone soon cuz looks like stone is out'.

Not trying to cause trouble, just trying to understand what I see as an illogical premise =)

Lost

[Waelos]

Unless your point was that you wouldn't be able to see the PC's very hard hits in the spam of hitters hitting mobs the same way. . . but that doesn't make much sense either as what do you do when you're fighting one or more mobs when the mob is nearly dead and everyone is hitting hard anyway?

Lost!

[Jegzed]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Waelos:
<B>Unless your point was that you wouldn't be able to see the PC's very hard hits in the spam of hitters hitting mobs the same way. . . but that doesn't make much sense either as what do you do when you're fighting one or more mobs when the mob is nearly dead and everyone is hitting hard anyway?
Lost!</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my point, the distintive difference between a pc hitting a mob and a mob hurting a player is absolutely vital to doing a good job as a stone/healer.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, please convince me with some proof.

Yes I do feel strongly about this issue as it affects completely the effectivity about my class(and others). Compare it to yanking dual wield for rangers, or bash for warriors in importance.

/Jegzed

ps. Thats only in the final round or two of a fight that it is a problem in spam as it is now, and I usually gets a bit confused then at times.

[Joth]

I think the combat system was fine, just need a tweak here and there. For example, I think a humaniod mob should only be attacked by no more then 4-6 people, in melee combat; so only like 4 people can attack a dwarf or gnome, where a barb or human can be attack by 6 melee chars and non-chars. After that you would have giant/demon size which can be attack by 8-10 people, then dragon size which can be attack by any number of characters. Also when a mob have the max amount of chars on it, it shouldn't beable to switch to chars that are not engagement melee unless casting a spell.

As to invokers I think they are fine, mages should do the most damage area wise. Also a number of mobs shrug spells. I think after the downgrade they were fine. I and if people still have a problems just increase an invokers exp table but not the benefits of the class.

Rangers, I think rangers are pretty much fine as they are, but I would change 2 things about them. Spell table and skills.
As to skill I think rangers should not have bash, first of the skill only gets to above average; I think a ranger of high level would like to have both master skill in dualing wielding, basicly making them able to hit 5 times every round.

As to ranger spell table, I think it should be revised to ONLY the spells druid get. So instead of strength they would get heal maybe, instead of magic missile they should get some first level druid spell. Finally they should also pray for the spells not memorize them.

I looked at other post some had good ideas I think would work fine. But I would just like to see mobsize and melee engagment.

[Elscint]

Oh how I wish Marforp were reading these posts, unfortunately he just moved to Hawaii and I'm not sure he has access to the board just yet. So on his behalf I will make a comment regarding Jegzed's argument for why damage messages should not be changed. Marforp and I watched the change over of sorcerers of old to the enchanters of new. Gone are the days when we used telnet (no client) and glanced to be sure our stone targets were stoned, now we've got lazy trigger bots that complain when someone wants the mud to be more aesthetically pleasing. It's a shame I tell you, I agree with the idea of changing the messages it would make the mud look better. And I completely disagree with the idea that it would make the enchanters job significantly harder, make a few gags and glance a bit more often, or perhaps make a few highlights using your client. Enchanters were pretty boring as it was maybe this would make it a bit more challenging.

As for Joth's ideas about Rangers, I like the ideas both of them.

The idea of spellsave I enjoy as well, as a percentage rather than a roll. The only drawback I see in that is how you are going to need to control the equipment as far as who can wear items so that you don't have someone especially casters since they don't have to worry about hit dam that would end up with -50+ spell and breath saves, it could get kind of ridiculous, really would need to be controlled by area makers keeping equipment restrictions tight.

Elscint Hairytoes (The Halfling Sorcerer)
Luke

[Faerwynd]

Joth reminded me of something I posted on egroups a while back. You wouldn't need to bother with all the group size balance stuff if you used the simple concept that AD&D uses about how many of one size creature can attack another.

You already have all the size flags in. An ogre sees a human as a small creature, a human sees a brownie as a tiny creature where a halfling sees a brownie as a small creature... etc.

So implement something where only 6 man sized can attack an ogre size, 8 man size can attack a giant, 12 man size can attack a dragon (huge), 20 man size can attack a purple worm, etc.

It seems easy enough to code. (since all the size flags are already done)
It seems to add combat realism to the game. (it stands to reason 50 brownies could swarm a dragon)
It seems to fix the problem of zone balance. (you can have 80 people in your group if you want, of course only 8 men or 10 dwarves can attack a single frost giant at a time)
It seems to fix the invoker problems. (you could prevent invokers from hurting mobs that are swarmed with frienly PC's and only hurt mobs that aren't surrounded, for example)

This seems a logical step to me. I'm sure others have echoed these sentiments too.

[Sarvis]

Would it really be a problem if mages had -50 spellsave under that system? Under the old system that would give them a very high chance of getting half damage from spells, under the new system they would still get half damage from spells... heh. Also I think mages _should_ have higher resistance to magic because they are around it all the time and understand how it works. I mean most high level mages in FR can eat a fireball and just be a little singed, even though the damage a fireball does would far outweight a mages measly hp. I'd only say don't allow much spellsave and +hp eq together... so mages would have to choose between having high hp in case they get switched to or high spellsave so they don't die from those nasty incendiary clouds.

Sarvis

[belleshel]

I totally agree with Joth's ranger suggestions.
As for the size vs. attackers, very intresting. Curious how evils would feel about it, since it would effect them more than goodies, hopefully tia wouldn't be typical dragon sized (imagine only having 6-8 ogre/trolls able to hit her at once). But it would add a lot of new strategy to some zones, instead of piling on a certain mob all the time, you might have to break some hitters off to a 2ndary target, which could get intresting (if invoker damage is downed and targetting becomes more important again).
And the size of your hitters become a factor. How would this change ranged? could rangers/rogues still target a mob ringed with friendlies? or would they become off limits as well?
Lots to think about concerning such a large change,
Belle

[Jegzed]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elscint:
Marforp and I watched the change over of sorcerers of old to the enchanters of new. Gone are the days when we used telnet (no client) and glanced to be sure our stone targets were stoned, now we've got lazy trigger bots that complain when someone wants the mud to be more aesthetically pleasing. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I zoned quite alot on raw telnet as enchanter, and it sure helped me in a large combat to see on the message instead of having to type 15 glances (which takes like at least half the combat to type anyway, and I didn't have scrollback anyway.)

It was so much nicer to just notice hard/very hard, blabla messages.. It took a few weeks to make it work like a reflex.

c 'sto' turg<CR>


/Jegzed

[cherzra]

I disagree with the crowd code, I see it every day on duris and it thoroughly disgusts me. "You can not reach them!" baaaaaaah I'll tell you, just like pulse code, it really sucks.

[Ruhr]

In 3rd edition DnD, size impacts combat through armor class. If you're small, like a halfling, you get a +4 modifier to AC (which is good), if you're large like a giant, it's a -4 modifier.

Size also plays a factor is movement and what used to be refered to as THACO.

Each level you get a base attack bonus. A 9th lvl 3E dwarf fighter has base attack bonus of 10/5 (10 for the first attack, 5 for the second). Added to this is your strength modifer.

If you're a larger creature you get a bigger base attack bonus, conversely, if you're smaller you get a smaller bonus.

Total attack bonus = (str bonus + base + magical weapon properties (e.g. +2 sword) - dual wield modifier (-2 up to -6).

Then you roll a 20 sided die and add your total attack bonus to the roll and if it equals or exceeds the armor class of whomever your attacking, then you hit them.

Damage is rolled with the damage dice of the weapon (e.g. 1d8) and added with your strength modifier (e.g. you roll a 6 and add +5 for a strength of 20 for a total of 11 damage for that one hit).

The D20 system is a great combat system that might be considered if you're looking to replace/upgrade the old sojourn combat system--especially in light of the new emphasis on armor class.

[This message has been edited by Ruhr (edited 02-23-2001).]

[Joth]

I think class sizes make sense and is realistic and helps with balancing ALOT. It will also make range combat more useful. I just don't see 12 normal size chars attacking a 1 normal size creature. I know it not hardcore to code because seen it on other muds.

But I think it would help with group size issue I think 15 is nice I personally would like 18 .

But melee engagement attacks is something I believe that the mud combat system needs and would defiantly make things balanced.

[Malacar]

Actually, the bonuses are varied in 3rd edition..

Medium size are 0 modifiers.. And based on the 'step' differential, you get penalties or bonuses to hit.. The larger the target, respectively, the easier to hit, the smaller the target, respectively(a giant hitting a pixie would be funny), is harder, etc. Keep in mind the penalty or bonus is based on size difference from target to attacker.

All in all, I like Ruhr's idea, and I think he's on to something.

[Sarvis]

As for the crowding code you gotta think of things a little differently. First of all, no dock master irl is so tough to kill that you'd need more than one seasoned adventurer to kill him. In fact a single hit with a good trusty broadsword would probably bring him down. There's no crowding code because mobs were made with super large stats and hitpoints in order to make us group together. It would be far more realistic if we could fight and defeat things like dock masters 1 on 1... but then sojourn would be a lot less fun.
The second problem with crowding is movement... believe it or not when you fight you don't just stand in place and hack away at your enemy. He'll be moving around, dodging and sidestepping blows, and trying to find an advantageous piece of terrain. It's not 12 people surrounding one guy and layin the smack down on him, it's more like those cheesy ninja movies where the hero is surrounded buy twenty ninjas and he kicks all their asses. They all run in and take a couple swings with weapons of fists, then get knocked down and there's room for the next couple. Think about it... with the high hp and skills and such with mobs, we players are the goofy evil ninjas gettin our asses kicked.

Sarvis

[Bopple]

1. Invoker options -
a) make mobs magic resistant
b) make no vokers can cast some powerful area spells alone. like 3 ppl needed to cast inferno...or make the spells much less powerful when 1 voker cast them
c) ragorn's idea
d) way long delay and penalties before & after casting those spells (preparation & fatigue)

2. combat damage messages
i hate those millions of 'barely hits' messages.
but some issues there can be difficulties of discerning dmg done to players and rescuing them. i think ppl can adapt eventually but who knows? *shrug*
then how about mixed type of 'barely hits' and 'hits' messages?

[This message has been edited by Bopple (edited 02-24-2001).]

[Elseenas]

Waelos:

I played an assassin as far as I could without any pleveling, until they were upgraded they really were not worth nearly as much as rangers. With the new modifications, maybe the rogue will be equivilant, but I wouldn't claim they were "extremely powerful" (particularly without circle, so that ungodly high backstab never got put to use for very long.


Anyways, Suggestions were asked for:

1) Balance rogues as hitters. They are the only class shared by several evil and good races that can be in either type of party.

2)This has been mentioned, but give everyone a unique role IN COMBAT. Among the magic-types, this was not difficult. Among everyone else, this becomes an issue.

Toril was so combat intensive that for most zones thieves got delegated to lockpick duty with the proviso of "try not to get hurt" when the fighting started (sometimes not even being kept around long enough to do the remainder of the zone).

I remember being frusterated as an assassin because in a group of people of equivilent level, the supposed hitter couldn't hit anything while the Invokers, Warriors, &c were doing good damage and at least hitting the target 9 times out of 10. My role in combat was limited, no matter how cool vital strike was, because I had trouble hitting the target.

3) This has also been mentioned: make dodge, &c work for multiple attacks with a diminishing chance. I have seen someone, IRL, do a tripple body evasion against a single opponent in the course of one `round'.

4) Make mobs &c load on the bottom of the screen not the top. This is a subtle differance, but a critical one (ask anyone who has tried to backstab in SS).

5)Give mobs a unique identifying number, three-digits or so, so that different numbers in the same room are easy to identify. This ties in with #4 to keep people from backstabbing the wrong mob. By way of example:
An orc is playing cards here (111).
An orc is playing cards here (112).
An orc is playing cards here (113).

Lets say we are engaged with orc.2; I could instead type in orc.(112) or somesuch and even if two more orcs came into the room and orc.(111) died I would still hit the same one.

Anyways, just my 2 copper.

Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning

[cherzra]

I don't like #4 and #5, for the same reason I don't want the 'switches targets...' message to change to 'switches to Jegzed'....


let's keep some skill and attention on part of the mudder a requirement.

[Gormal]

Any of you that say assassins were worthless before they were upgraded are morons. You obviously never played/saw them played to their fullest potential. Watching dizahk own any zone with his assassin was a beautiful thing. Poisons are an assassins best weapon if they know how to use them. The ability to blind poison slow etc any mob is awesome. Assassins were never a HUGE power...they were always a more subtle character that still kicked ass if the person playing it knew what they were doing.

[Waelos]

Assassins:

Yep. Especially after the upgrades. They were without a doubt the best hitter class in the game. 5 attacks per round +poison damage, +slow, +blind, +viatal strike, +backstab, hurled darts/daggers if you wanted. . . the only reason people had no clue about how great they were is because only 2 people played an assassin past like 30th level. Sure they need to be played _well_ and with a certain style. . . but thats the same with most classes. ranger isn't all that beat ass standup, but if you know what you're doing they can exceed their standard usefullness.

I'm not going to argue that they were great at lvl 1, 10, 20 etc. because no class is all that great then. Check the druid. they pretty much suck until 36th level and still only moderately usefull until 46th and two quests are completed. Of course, I knew beat ass druids who totally superceeded their classes limitations with their skills. Would be nice to see what would happen if those classes were balanced! muhahaha.

Anyway, before you go disparaging a class, play it, or at the very least watch it being played, at it's full potential.

Lost

[Nilan]

Assassins were a good class if you played it correctly. Problem with the class was, that groups were few and far between, why take a assassin when you could just well him in to pick locks and leave, take paladins and rangers instead. that was the player base attitude on toril/soj for last 5 years.

the new skills and combination of thiefs/and assassins without a change in player base attitude will not suddenly make the new rogue class valuable in group situations. The new skills are the exact same skills the assassin class was upgraded to before the mud went down. It didnt improve the group situation, the only good thing that came of it was giving thiefs lock pick so i didnt have to field those lame well in pick and leave tells on a nigtly basis.

heheh, so assassin and thiefs are now combined. the skills seems to be an improvement along with a hpt boost. But it will be Player base attitude that will be the telling factor if the class will be a "grouping" welcome class.

My two cents

Nilan

[Waelos]

Nilan - Really the only reason I can see that assassins didn't get many groups towards the end of S2 was because there were already so many rangers/paladins established. Assassins were great, but few and far between . . . and hardly anyone played them (except you and Dizahk's alt, I can't recall any assassin over lvl 40). So when you have 10 40+ rangers out there and 2 assassins and 3 groups zoning. . . chances are much greater that rangers gonna be involved and since rangers and assassins couldn't group....well, that had to exclude the newer / less established class. I really think the rogue is going to have a great niche this time around =)

Lost

[Elseenas]

Gormal:

I played an assassin to a decent point as an Assassin before they were upgraded (much further after) and loved to play them as an evil, but lets be honest: NO ONE wanted something that acted as a PURE hitter that was less effective at it than a fighter (in terms of actually hitting the target) and couldn't tank worth anything in their group except as a backup (I can't tell you the number of times I was accepted ONLY because there was an enchanter in the party and because they needed a little extra firepower and there wasn't anything better around).

Nilan: I'll agree to that.

[Elseenas]

cherza:

As to your comment on skill and attention, this is what I am trying to avoid:

Elseenas>backstab lazy.2 //this one is incapacitated
(long pause)
A lazy-drow enters the room.
(here it comes)
You miss a lazy drow.
You barely scratch a lazy drow. (uh oh)

You stager from a lazy drow's fearsome slash!
blah blah blah

RIP (after having been weakened and going for the coup-de-grace on the incapacitated lazy drow, the other one makes short work of me in my weakened state of health).

[Gormal]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>Gormal:

I played an assassin to a decent point as an Assassin before they were upgraded (much further after) and loved to play them as an evil, but lets be honest: NO ONE wanted something that acted as a PURE hitter that was less effective at it than a fighter (in terms of actually hitting the target) and couldn't tank worth anything in their group except as a backup (I can't tell you the number of times I was accepted ONLY because there was an enchanter in the party and because they needed a little extra firepower and there wasn't anything better around).</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You completely missed the point of my post. Assasin's were never "pure" hitters. Rangers/monks are the only classes that basically just sit back and whomp. Yes they both have other support skills but essentially they are there for damage potential.
After the upgrades i saw more rogue types being in groups. Mostly because more people were actually playing them. On the evil side i have no idea why they weren't used fully. Maybe they had their own few assassins they constantly used or their leaders just didn't see the value cause it wasn't their style. Whateveh.
I don't know how you can compare assassins to other "fighters" though. They were very different from rangers in how they were played, and warriors were never considered a damage class, at least on our side. Ask around how many warriors pocketed their twilights or rockcrushers for shields and a 1hander.

[Kyse]

How about... mem/pray during combat? I'd love to see that.

-Kyse Littlecoyote/Ticu

[Nilan]

Well, Waelos, We Shall See, wont we?
If player base attitude has changed then perhaps it shall be me that will bow to you and say "Gee Waelos, my ranger friend, you were right"

Heh, but before I ever admit that a goodie ranger is right, I shall first see if indeed , attitudes have changed regarding rogues, in zone groups (from start to finish, beginning of zone to its completion).

I hope you are right, ranger, I really hope so. Its been a fight, I have fought for 5 years now. But I must say my faith in people has diminished with each passing year.
But I once again find myself daring to believe in change, even though it has been a shadowed dream up to this point.

So, all I can say now is "I shall hope you are right and that you win this round, my Ranger friend" You have more faith in humanity than I.

*grin*

Nilan

[Jegzed]

Well, Veanakazulitan was a 40+ assassin that was used heavily in zoning. (Was that Koldar's evil, I can't recall)


/Jegzed

[Nilan]

Yup Yup Jegzed

Evils were slightly different however.
I think human assassin was about as outcast one could get on the old soj muds. They couldnt group with evils like anti's and necro's could and goodies rarely welcomed their "combat skills" in groups situations (zones)

Howfully this will all change

But I must admit I have made some great friends and players, fighting for the drow homeland on this other mud we play on. And a certain few drows have shown me that Nilan looks real good in black skin and stark white hair

I have so much fun adventuring with them that i truely for once am enjoying playing They are a great bunch of pals to hang with.

Nilan

[Sarvis]

Bah! Ye'r startin to sound like Entreri... he too enjoyed the company of the drow, for a time. And it's not like you haven't been havin fun hangin out with rangers and such on this other mud. I think yer just afraid to find out Waelos is right... would probably destroy your mind if a ranger was right and you weren't.. hehe.

Sarvis

[cherzra]

Back when the mud was still called Toril there was a duergar assassin by the name of Dorzaguer Bloodraider, I just sifted through my old logs, and I'll tell you he was one MEAN hitter... I wouldn't wanna spar him.

[Nilan]

Laugh Sarvis,

Well as I said, ranger, we shall see. If he's indeed right , I do have honor, contrary to what most of your ilk would think, and I shall admit to him, he is right.

But as for my adventures with Drow, I must admit I am accepted by them and I feel more at home than I have in 6 years. I fight beside them, I look after them in combat, and they do the same for me. We work togther as a team. Its fun fun

So if I do sound like Entreri then perhaps I do. heheh maybe I should read this book you are referring to.

Nilan

[Me]

In my opinion, a good solution to the perceived overpowering of invokers would be to include spell components into the world.

Personally, I am a fan of components for most (2nd circle+) spells, and I say this as one who will play nothing -but- a mage. To cut down on micromanagement, many spells would probably require identical components.

I think that components would add a dimension not currently present in the mud, in that mages must prepare beforehand to make sure they are able to cast the necessary spells for where they are going.

Low level components should be obtainable all over. Some higher-level components should involve an quest of some sort, and probably many different ways of obtaining the component. This would give me something to do when I'm bored.

By limiting the number of components available per boot (to a reasonable number, not to a ridiculously low amount), some of the more powerful spells can be used on a more rare basis. This effectively limits the power of these spells, not by downgrading their damage (which I am against -- invokers are *supposed* to be powerful), but by downgrading their frequency of use.

Note that frequency can also be degraded by requiring more difficult quests, rare mobs, expensive items, and a variety of other means.

Many of those who primarily play mages might be against this idea, probably on the basis that it would be tedious. I am not of this opinion. I believe that a balance could be achieved where the maintenance aspects of the mage's art could actually be made enjoyable, and a reason for me to pop into places I might not otherwise frequent.

Then again, I must be insane. I play a Necromancer.

[Ruhr]

play Acheron's Call much?

[Corth]

I guess that I'm in the minority but I have never quite understood why it is so important that all classes be balanced relative to each other. People mud for different reasons. Some want to kill everything, complete every quest, etc. Others want to RP.

Although I am not overly pre-occupied with the subject, I have given some thought to how the rogue class could possibly ever be balanced. The only thing I came up with is a situation where the less hp's a hitter has, the more damage they do. I guess thats pretty much what the powers that be have been trying to do. Of course, this was completely undermined by making vokers too powerful. However, even if invokers were downgraded, it would be a silly idea. A rogue isn't supposed to be a big time damage dealer.. they hide in the shadows and stab some pour schmuck in the back and steal his possessions. Or they get paid to do the same thing.

Another idea would be to add a bunch of locked doors that don't have corresponding keys. This might help, but on the other hand you'd probably see rogues welled in just for the door and then welled out. This just adds insult to injury. If you made so many locked doors that it became necessary to bring a rogue along, it would just make them a silly one-dimensional class.

Basically, my point is that it wouldn't be the worst thing for the rogue class to be more of a RP class, and remain relatively unbalanced. Even though thieves and assassins sucked on Toril, there were a number of them, and they were some of the best personalities in the game. I dunno.. but it seems to me that there is something to be said for a person that plays an underpowered class because they like it. I respect that.

Corth

[Treladian]

Me: The problem with spell components is that what would probably happen is that a the higher level mages would all swarm to them every boot and leave the lower level mages spell less.

Corth: Balance is important because although different people have fun in different ways, pretty much everyone has fun in groups. But it's a lot harder to get into a group if your class isn't up to snuff and you wind up sitting on your ass at the fountain all day. Things also aren't fun if they aren't challenging. Hence, the importance of balancing has to do with making and keeping the mud fun for everyone.

[izarek]

While I understand the desire to have spell components to balance the class, all I have to say is:

How many times is a 'voker going to cast force missile or such during a day or even a particular zone?

That's alot of spell components. IF spell components were used, they'd have to be multi-use things. Say for instance some kind of crystal whose energy runs out after like 100 force missiles cast. Then, you 'd need a way to measure that approximately (your blue-white crystal shard glows faintly).

The other problem is the number of these available. There'd hafta be lots. Like Treladian said, all the mages would swarm the few components available. They'd also have to be accessible to both evils and goodies. Perhaps you could buy most of them in magic shoppes. *shrug*

I'd say that it'd be alot more difficult to balance this than just leave spellcasting the way it is and balance the spells themselves.

Izzy

[Shevarash]

I'd have to agree with that sentiment.

We may add some spells which require components, but only in the case of seriously powerful top-circle spells. And that's just an idea, not something that we plan to implement at this time.

[Sarell]

Nilan:
Are you crazy man, dont tell anyone rogues are the same as assiassins! Try bragging about how they are the new uber class, that might work, (unless a god believes you are twinking something and downgrades you further hehe) JK *ruffles*

I played a duergar thief for a while, wnd with my escaping, throwing, circle I must say I thought I was pretty spanky at low - mid level. Can't say about high level and whether or not the best hitter class would be taken along over a nuker. I think allowing rangers/pallys to group with rogues will help somewhat. I certainly know the feeling of getting asked to well in and pick, that just sucks, I totally agree with what you said one time about "ok then if I can have the eq".

With regards to changing the battle messages from being "barely" for most of the fight. I can totally see Jegzed's point. Enchanters are definately not an easy class, especially for those of us that are not a good one or are using telnet from somewhere that you can't have a mud client. However playing a warrior as a primary for a while I must say I did imagine that in sojourn land all the swords where really really tiny and you just ran up and poked the mobs until they eventually got sick of you and died. Perhaps you could vary the messages just a bit as someone mentioned above, with nicking, scrathcing etc etc, and even have the hard and very hards put in that category aswell. Then you could save the Enshrouds, Half Kills, Turns into a pancake etc for when the hits are really starting to hurt something. Definately need something tho to see when players are getting hurt via a telnet client tho. Typing
glance biblopkoppleickleack;
glance grug;
glance stimpy;
glance schwarznegger;
cast 'stone' biblopkoppleickleack;
in one round is really not going to work.

Perhaps a toggle that puts a flashing *** at the ends of any line in which a player gets hit? Or as someone suggest just be able to select the old or new messages to be displayed in prompt?
Shrugs, or maybe give us druids dragonscales so we can take the load of the poor enchanters *ducks*

Have a RAD day!

Sarell/Ladak/etc aka Patrick

[Corth]

Treladian:

Yes grouping is fun for everyone. Also, I was completely guilty of neglecting rogue classes when I used to lead. On the other hand, like I said in my previous message, the only realistic way that I know of to balance rogues is to make them uber-hitters. Assuming that this wouldn't unbalance paladins and rangers, it would still be ridiculously unrealistic. Like I said, rogues aren't supposed to be big time damage dealers. When was the last time you heard of a might thief leading the charge against a dragon and smiting it almost barehandedly? If you can think of any other way to balance rogues, I'm sure many people here would be very interested.

Corth

[Treladian]

I don't think rogues should become uber-hitters either. But they definately need more hit points than what they had and need to do enough damage to make them worthwhile. Since paladins and rangers have extra restrictions placed on them, they should be better hitters to make them worth the trouble of being one (though many of those restrictions are gone now). Giving rogues good hitting ability mixed in with their ability to supplement their hitting ability with poisons would make them worthwhile hitters IMO even if they don't match the raw output of a paladin with a two hander or ranger though.