Paladins/Anti-Paladins and innate pfe/g

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Paladins/Anti-Paladins and innate pfe/g

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:39 pm

As it stands now, starting at level 1, paladins and antipaladins get protection from (opposite of their alignment). This gives them a significant bonus to ac (for low level) versus mobs of the alignment they are protected from. I have a suggestion.

As opposed to starting this bonus at -20 ac (what it was quite some time
ago, not certain if this is true) why not start it lower, and have it work its
way up to a higher score? At level 1, a 20 ac bonus is quite significant. At the higher levels, 20 ac is still pretty significant but....

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS warriors are preferred over paladins and antipaladins for tanking. Hands down, they are better at it. This is NOT just because of the equipment worn (although that does play a role). I suggest making this innate protection a bit more beefy at the higher levels, to encourage groups to take paladins and anti paladins as tanks for doing zones of their opposed alignment. The only time antis and paladins get any love right now is if a) they are a close friend of someone in the group, or b) there are no other zoneable or available warriors.

This could perhaps counter SOME of the benefit that warriors get from being able to use all their defensive abilities plus being embodied, whereas paladins and antis must be mounted in order to use all their defensive abilities, and while mounted, cannot recieve the bonuses of
elemental embodiment.


Just a thought....
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:24 pm

tanking is about consitency.

anti/pal hps create some consistency issues (especially since most of them refuse to ignore hit/dam). Not to mention issues like being dismounted mid combat (and completely screwed since you suddenly lost ALL your defensive skills). The latest dragon bashing mount and !flee thing has created some issues as well as existing issues with rooms you can't ride into.

add onto this the inability to consistently bash mobs. charge is great and works effectively on things bash cant touch, however, quite a few zones you are expecting !fail bash which any warrior can do. I don't think this should be changed, but it is a factor.

giving them additional innate protection and defense is going to be useless unless it affects all situations. They already have enough specialized skills to be effective in a warriors role, however, the logisitics of appyling those skills leaves much to be desired.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Postby Botef » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:31 pm

well said kiryan.
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:59 pm

kiryan wrote:Not to mention issues like being dismounted mid combat (and completely screwed since you suddenly lost ALL your defensive skills).


Why oh why can't they just make a check for mount/mounted combat and just hop back on? *sigh*
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:33 am

kiryan wrote:tanking is about consitency.

anti/pal hps create some consistency issues (especially since most of them refuse to ignore hit/dam). Not to mention issues like being dismounted mid combat (and completely screwed since you suddenly lost ALL your defensive skills). The latest dragon bashing mount and !flee thing has created some issues as well as existing issues with rooms you can't ride into.

add onto this the inability to consistently bash mobs. charge is great and works effectively on things bash cant touch, however, quite a few zones you are expecting !fail bash which any warrior can do. I don't think this should be changed, but it is a factor.

giving them additional innate protection and defense is going to be useless unless it affects all situations. They already have enough specialized skills to be effective in a warriors role, however, the logisitics of appyling those skills leaves much to be desired.


First off, tanking is about consistency? Zones are usually relatively consistent in what type of mob you will find. Fire based critters in fire plane, undead in ttf, elementals in TE, demons in BC, etc. Usually if you start a zone full of evils, the entire zone will be full of evils (or at least the critters you kill, not the ones you quest). Same to be said full of good aligned zones. Although the latter is MUCH less prevalent than the prior.


Why should ANY melee class completely ignore hit/dam? why do warriorable items have any hit/dam on them then? Warriors should be able to do SOMETHING other than just stand there and act as a portable wall between themselves and the casters. Melee needs an overhaul, and i hope this is taken into consideration when the overhaul is done.

Dismounting in combat is relatively rare (with a high skill) and if you wear +maxcon equip, this seems extremely rare. The dragon bashing mount stuff should be changed. Not for realism purposes, but for the fact that it completely buttrapes the mounted tank (making them more uselessl than they already were).

The ability to not ride into a room because of a portal or other transportation means could easily be addressed by what is mentioned in the post just above this one. Just add a difficulty to re-mounting, if not a lag of a round or two. Not a HUGE deal.

And while i'm at it, the !fear bit that paladins got should be given to
anti's. The help files even note that the only difference is in the gods
they worship. You saying the evil gods aren't as powerful as the good
ones and can't provide fearlessness in their zealots?

Overall, the mud could use a quick overview in respect to mounts and mounted combat. It almost seems to be more of a hinderance than a benefit. The ability to charge is trivial at best, an interruption of spells and
VERY short duration stun, truly only beneficial to stop spellcasters from casting. Not to mention charge doesn't hit but what, 70% of the time?
Lahgen
Sojourner
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:58 am

Postby Lahgen » Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:36 am

Two things:

1. Compared to spell damage, melee damage is supposed to look lame in comparison. Look at tabletop; the spankiest +5 sword doesn't even compare to the damage output of a good old fashioned meteor swarm.

2. The dragon thing, well so what if it puts the mounted tank at a disadvantage? Some classes aren't all things to all situations, you know.
Kesena OOC: 'i wish my daddy bought me power tools'
Dorgh group-says 'damn, even with Cofen helping Mori, they STILL can't kill someone
Hekanut says 'I know level doesn't matter much, but most won't take seriously if a level 2 claims to be the best thing before, during, and after sliced bread.'

Rather than seeing "subpar race/class," see "challenge."
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:59 am

>First off, tanking is about consistency? Zones are usually relatively consistent in what type of mob you will find. Fire based critters in fire plane, undead in ttf, elementals in TE, demons in BC, etc. Usually if you start a zone full of evils, the entire zone will be full of evils (or at least the critters you kill, not the ones you quest). Same to be said full of good aligned zones. Although the latter is MUCH less prevalent than the prior.

consistency in living to the next fheal/dscale consistency in being able to perform the role of tank.


>Why should ANY melee class completely ignore hit/dam? why do warriorable items have any hit/dam on them then? Warriors should be able to do SOMETHING other than just stand there and act as a portable wall between themselves and the casters. Melee needs an overhaul, and i hope this is taken into consideration when the overhaul is done.

they can do other things. they can wield a 2h and do some damage and wear hit/dam gear. They do have these capabilities. However, group leaders have chosen to form based on specialized group roles.

These specialized group roles are filled with available classes and people in these roles are expected to specialize for the well being of the entire group not for your F*ing personal play style/preference. Sure an enchanter can cast offensive, and its fine until the group spanks because he didnt get a dscale up fast enough. Paladins and Antis are very extremely rarely ever put into a specialized damage role, and they often fail to make the necessary adjustments to be a highly consistent tank (wear 400 hps in gear).



>Dismounting in combat is relatively rare (with a high skill) and if you wear +maxcon equip, this seems extremely rare. The dragon bashing mount stuff should be changed. Not for realism purposes, but for the fact that it completely buttrapes the mounted tank (making them more uselessl than they already were).

>The ability to not ride into a room because of a portal or other transportation means could easily be addressed by what is mentioned in the post just above this one. Just add a difficulty to re-mounting, if not a lag of a round or two. Not a HUGE deal.

maybe not a huge deal to code, but a huge deal in the consistency of mounties as tanks. their complete inability to remount in combat is more than enough to justify bringing another warrior instead.

>And while i'm at it, the !fear bit that paladins got should be given to
anti's. The help files even note that the only difference is in the gods
they worship. You saying the evil gods aren't as powerful as the good
ones and can't provide fearlessness in their zealots?

i don't know why they shouldn't get it, but can we do something else instead. lets try not to make every class the same.

>Overall, the mud could use a quick overview in respect to mounts and mounted combat. It almost seems to be more of a hinderance than a benefit.

there is a point where realism needs to give way to functionality. Archery could use a dose of this as well.

>The ability to charge is trivial at best, an interruption of spells and
VERY short duration stun, truly only beneficial to stop spellcasters from casting. Not to mention charge doesn't hit but what, 70% of the time?

its my opinion that shieldpunch is even less effective than charge by a significant amount.

the big question should be if you fix all the annoyances and hindrances of mounted combat pal/anti, where does that leave warriors. mounties will tank better and do 2-3x more damage in tank mode.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:20 am

2 things.


1) lahgen - never said one had to be everything in every situation. in
the above post i didn't note something silly like "prot from good should
help against evil align too". gimme a break. i said nothing along the lines
of spell damage at all. I agree that spell damage should be greater than melee damage. but that isn't the point i'm trying to make above. This started as a suggestion to try to get antis/paladins into some sort of a niche where they weren't just scoffed by the mud as worthless wanna-be tanks (aka rangers).

2) Kiryan - two parts to this one. first off, it takes quite awhile to get to the point where you can wield a 2h weapon while mounted. So not always a consideration. The more important point i want to get to is how "the big question should be if you fix all the annoyances and hindrances of mounted combat pal/anti, where does that leave warriors. mounties will tank better and do 2-3x more damage in tank mode." just makes you look silly. Realistically, shieldblock works more effectively than mounted combat.

I've tested this with a couple of warriors. I've dueled many warrior confiturations in the arena. Going full hp, and or full hit/dam gear, and most combinations inbetween. The results aren't indicitive of how well the classes would perform in a group, but take a look at what i've found. Barring blinding of the warrior (stopping bash/headbutt/shieldpunch/etc)
and barring the use of lifetap (use once/24 minutes vs 1 target, not very balanced in pvp use) the warrior will win 9/10 times. Reason for this being twofold. 1) i registered 15% more misses on the warriors than they registered on me. i blame a) defensive skills and b) barbarian vs human agility. 2) headbutt kicks ass.

To rule out headbutt as the reason for warriors winning all the time, i tried the same expiriment without headbutt. The fights were considerably closer, but 2/3 times, the warrior still won.

Back in the day, just after wipe, mounted combat was significantly stronger than it is now, and warrior headbutt wasn't near as powerful. This is how i was able to defeat the warriors in the FNAT fight club. That and a high +max_str to get blind proc off.

Overall, i don't know how you can make the claim that if the nuisance of the mounted combat issues were resolved (and not asking for all nuisances, just some) it would in NO way increase how well a mounted tank can tank. it would just increase how consistent they were at doing it. PERHAPS making them a more suitable tank based on your "consistency" statement.

Disclaimer: This post by no means is intended to make anyone think that i believe warriors aren't a class that could use some improvement/tweaks also. As stated above, melee needs an overhaul. And no, lahgen, not to make it better than spell damage.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:12 am

Delmair Aamoren wrote:2 things.


and warrior headbutt wasn't near as powerful.


Wrong, back in the day, I would have bodyslammed you off of your horse and knocked the hell out of you with headbutt while you are on the ground. It turns out that I have been made to be more of a kind hearted individual. I am no longer able to dive at you headfirst and knock you unconscious, I was never able to kick you while you were down (I never did like that), and my headbutt will only do decent damage if you are in the arena and standing up (btw, I have a strategy for you kneeling people) unless you are a troll or ogre. In the case of the troll I can headbutt them if they are sitting (on top of the head) or standing (in the face). In the case of the ogre, I can headbutt them in the stomach and hope they fall down.

Headbutt was MUCH more powerful when it could KO the opponent or you. I am sure there is sound reasoning behind the fact that it was changed, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. I'd prefer headbutt to actually give some risk vs. reward flavor. Sure, you risked dying because the mob beat you mercilessly while KO'd, but you also had the chance of KO'ing the mob. I like the size restrictions and the fact that I can actually headbutt a troll or an ogre now, but headbutt has turned into a glorified kick, yes it does more damage, but what is the point?

Now, before I derail the topic completely, headbutt is most definitely NOT more powerful than it ever has been.

-The end.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:33 am

ok, they're more "consistent" then. The damage has been increased significantly. And yes, i neglected the bodyslam bit, but i could still be headbutted even when mounted, so the point is rather moot.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:47 am

I would still argue against the belief that the damage from headbutt has been upped significantly. I believe it took a serious hit. However, it would take an imm to prove either side. Neither of us can know how much damage a headbutt does to a mob, so I can talk about what I have experienced on the giving end against mobs, and you can talk about receiving it.

I highly doubt either one of our opinions will change without some hard numbers, so I won't address it any longer.

:) Thanks for the differing opinion though, it is always fun to disagree.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'



Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Sarell
Sojourner
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: brisbane, australia

Postby Sarell » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:52 am

I would think mounts would be the first thing to flee to a dragon! Dragons freakin eat mounts! :P

Anyhow, I have to agree that most pallies who play, just don't wear enough tanking gear which a tank absolutely needs. You need 2 configurations of gear, one of when you are tanking in a group, one for when you are out in small groups or soloing things a warrior could never dream of.

Pallies should be able to get back on their horse in combat. You see people doing that in the movies all the time and it looks really cool and looking really cool > all. (Also it would make them suck less, but have it based on a skillcheck, Mounted combat skill / number mobs you are tanking.

Ultimately I have to say, if players want to be as good a tank as a warrior all the time, I think they should have to make a warrior. Pallies get other skills to offset the difference between theirs and warrior tanking.
Arishae group-says 'mah sunray brings all the boys to the yard'
Shadow Scream

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests