Sat Jul 9 23:42:46 2005

At 4 o'clock PM, Day of the Moon, 21st of the Month of the Great Evil
on the Theran calendar Curgrim perished, never to return.

Race:	duergar
Class:	warrior
Level:	41
Alignment:	Evil
Ethos:	Chaotic
Cabal:	BATTLE, the BattleRagers, Haters of Magic
Age:	101
Hours:	104

Battle is an out of place cabal. Over powered for what they have to fight. Either a mage cabal needs to be created with powers specifically to war with battle or battle needs to be removed or severly tweaked down.

Not the most popular opinion but that was my findings.

(I apologize for the auto-delete, I had forgotten my password while debating if I wanted to play Curgrim again)

Then why did Curgrim kill less and die more than every other character, including several non-Battle warriors, I've known you to play?

That's a completely serious question. I'm not sure how you can pick something, play your arguably weakest character ever with it, and decide it's overpowered.

"That's a completely serious question. I'm not sure how you can pick something, play your arguably weakest character ever with it, and decide it's overpowered."

That is a fair question. I will just list some of my thoughts:

"Over powered for what they have to fight"
1) Battle has (in my opinion) the best set of powers out of any of the cabals.
a) Such powers require extreme monitoring and action when things are not being done correctly. This is just an impossibility to accompish. It is no ones fault, there is just to much to watch for. I relate berserkers to Paladins, Paladin's at least have to earn (their sometimes overpowered=) virtues. A berserker just gets them and go.
b) The Destructor is a REAL difficult inner. I will make my usual end of character donation and I will be surprised if it shows that the Head was ever taken at all when I was around.
c) The thought that giving up magic is a fair trade is laughable. I would much rather have instant damage reduction and healing/haste/deathblow the majority of the time and then still have detect invis the rest of the time. My warriors typically only have detect invis (right Muuloc?) and they do just fine.

2) "Battle is an out of place cabal."
a) They have only one true constant cabal enemy, whose powers are not setup to actually war with battle.
b) Majority of their enemies are not, in fact, mages at all. Warrior vs warrior is typically a no contest in favor of the villager (some exceptions)
c) There are not enough mages to support such a popular (because of powers) cabal. You see this when villagers just get warranted to fight the poor trib. I could post examples but I am sure you have seen this.

In my opinion ,based on the points I have made, I still believe that a mage cabal with powers geared towards fighting Ragers would be ideal. If that is not done then I also still believe that battle will continue to be detrimental to CF's fun factor.

Now as far as my record directly, all my characters are a learning process for me. I was finally getting the hang of Curgrim when I basically had enough of how battle operates (I will avoid posting my thoughts on that topic).

The unfortunate part about my stay in battle is that it reversed the way my characters were developing. Granaak had straight forward, consistent RP and lots of PK. Israhiaz had much more depth but mediocre PK. Curgrim I had planned to have both..but now(have you ever watched Office Space?) I have my fifteen pieces of flair and I am content.

"1) Battle has (in my opinion) the best set of powers out of any of the cabals."

No argument here. Just remember that when the village is without its head, they can't resort to the same methods of getting it back as any other character (ie get spells up/use magical transportation.. etc). Throw a set of centurions behind a rager raiding the palace and they are usually dead. I have no problem with ragers having the best set of powers because their drawbacks are horrendous.

"a) Such powers require extreme monitoring and action when things are not being done correctly. This is just an impossibility to accompish. It is no ones fault, there is just to much to watch for. I relate berserkers to Paladins, Paladin's at least have to earn (their sometimes overpowered=) virtues. A berserker just gets them and go."

Berserkers have their pro's and con's. Remember that a berserker *has* earned the right to them by being inducted. A momentary lapse in concentration leading to "things not being done correctly" is fine by me. If a rager is consistantly bad, it will catch up with him or her and they will be punished accordingly. I've seen Ordasen and Kastellyn on a lot recently.

"b) The Destructor is a REAL difficult inner. I will make my usual end of character donation and I will be surprised if it shows that the Head was ever taken at all when I was around."

Of course the destructor is difficult (most of these questions/answers have been covered ad nauseum before but I'll rehash again). When is the last time you saw a healer in battle healing/sanc'ing the inner guardian? Exactly. The harder the better I say (and this is coming from an eternal mage) because if the big D falls then where do they have to hide? They can't just teleport, they can't just quaff a flight potion to avoid the quicksand waiting outside the village.

"c) The thought that giving up magic is a fair trade is laughable. I would much rather have instant damage reduction and healing/haste/deathblow the majority of the time and then still have detect invis the rest of the time. My warriors typically only have detect invis (right Muuloc?) and they do just fine."

Pity you completely contradict this point by the success of your rager. To counter the argument, you're magic using warrior was far more successful, should we power up ragers even more?

I played a rager recently. A very, very bad time to play one since at that time there were two liches and a mummy in empire. Every time I logged on, we didn't have the head and I'd have about 5 empire in range. I play balls to the wall ragers so I'd always go raid. Die about five times but eventually get the head back. Compare that to my magic using characters who rarely die 5 times throughout their entire lifespan. After that character I've got a soft spot for ragers with my current character, especially when they are doing it tough.

"2) "Battle is an out of place cabal.""

"a) They have only one true constant cabal enemy, whose powers are not setup to actually war with battle."

I believe the village is not out of place even if it doesn't have a direct opponent. I want Masters to return too but I wouldn't want to lose the village either. I think it would be better if Masters did return.

"b) Majority of their enemies are not, in fact, mages at all. Warrior vs warrior is typically a no contest in favor of the villager (some exceptions)"

The majority of who the villagers target are mages from what I've seen. If a warrior is with a mage at the time then yes, the warrior might get involved. I have rarely seen or heard a rager actively hunt down another non-mage for no reason. You definitely wouldn't get a veteran rager doing this, possibly a new rager but hey, every cabal has new players. I've seen tribunal go on mass flagging spree's. #### happens.

"c) There are not enough mages to support such a popular (because of powers) cabal. You see this when villagers just get warranted to fight the poor trib. I could post examples but I am sure you have seen this."

That's just a pendulum thing. You must be basing this on when it was swinging highly in the rager favour. There are plenty of times when ragers have far more to chew than they can possibly bite. I remember when the village was without its head for three months straight. Literally. Besides, if I was a tribunal, I'd want as many people flagged as possible to spice things up. What's the fun in sitting in a city and observing how orderly it is? Here I was thinking that you were more inclined towards the PK aspects of the game, not the RP aspects. I guess I was wrong.

"In my opinion ,based on the points I have made, I still believe that a mage cabal with powers geared towards fighting Ragers would be ideal. If that is not done then I also still believe that battle will continue to be detrimental to CF's fun factor."

Yes, if Masters came back, I'd roll up another mage in a second but to lose battle would be another kick in the teeth. If you have problems dealing with ragers with any of your non-rager characters then it's you that needs to improve.

The harder the better I say (and this is coming from an eternal mage) because if the big D falls then where do they have to hide?

3 of the 5 classes available to ragers have lots of places to hide.

I just realised that you only ever made it to 41. Actually try getting a duergar warrior rager into hero range and then tell me that they are overpowered. I think you'll find that they aren't. I have played my fair share of duergar warriors and they can be played successfully at hero in battle but they are FAR from overpowered, so far from it that it is laughable.

"it will catch up with him or her and they will be punished accordingly. I've seen Ordasen and Kastellyn on a lot recently."

Takes forever. Example: Seethian.

"Because if the big D falls then where do they have to hide? They can't just teleport, they can't just quaff a flight potion to avoid the quicksand waiting outside the village."

Greatest warriors in Thera should be able to learn territory.

"To counter the argument, you're magic using warrior was far more successful, should we power up ragers even more?"

Granaak was made and geared and legacy's were picked specifically to kill ragers. A rager is deathful to warriors right out of the box.

"The majority of who the villagers target are mages from what I've seen."

I was speaking in terms of Cabal wars. When they war with empire and fighting Scions, there are more non-mages than mages.

"What's the fun in sitting in a city and observing how orderly it is? Here I was thinking that you were more inclined towards the PK aspects of the game, not the RP aspects. I guess I was wrong."

I agree, it is boring if nothing is going on that is not the point. Well you can say what you like, my RP character had 91pk's.

"If you have problems dealing with ragers with any of your non-rager characters then it's you that needs to improve."

48 and 9 is my current record against Battle, I think I am doing fine.

"I just realised that you only ever made it to 41. Actually try getting a duergar warrior rager into hero range"

You have to be joking.

"and then tell me that they are overpowered."

You missed the point. Duergars are not overpowered. I believe that battle is out of place and unless they actually have a direct enemy equipped to fight them are fairly pointless.

This will be my last post here, if you would like to continue this discussion I have no problems doing so, I am always up for a talk. Granaak@gmail.com

"Greatest warriors in Thera should be able to learn territory."

Should they be able to avoid quicksand outside the village though?

"Granaak was made and geared and legacy's were picked specifically to kill ragers. A rager is deathful to warriors right out of the box.
"

Yes. You're kidding yourself if you think that a normal warrior (without preps) should be able to go toe-to-toe with a rager.

"I was speaking in terms of Cabal wars. When they war with empire and fighting Scions, there are more non-mages than mages."

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

"48 and 9 is my current record against Battle, I think I am doing fine."

This is where you lose me. You're complaining that ragers are overpowered yet you quote this statistic which completely contradicts your argument.

"You have to be joking."

I never joke. You're kidding yourself if you think it's as hard to play a level 41 duergar warrior as it is to play a level 47+ duergar warrior.

"You missed the point. Duergars are not overpowered. I believe that battle is out of place and unless they actually have a direct enemy equipped to fight them are fairly pointless."

Whaaa..? I must have missed the point. I thought you were complaining about ragers being overpowered. Since you played a duergar, I was taking that point of view.

"This will be my last post here, if you would like to continue this discussion I have no problems doing so, I am always up for a talk. Granaak@gmail.com"

This may or may not be my last post here. Since this is the most appropriate forum to continue this discussion and you would like to continue doing so, feel free to reply to this post.

"Should they be able to avoid quicksand outside the village though?"

You can't put quicksand right outside the village anymore.

"Yes. You're kidding yourself if you think that a normal warrior (without preps) should be able to go toe-to-toe with a rager."

Can a normal warrior with all the gatherable preps take a rager consistently from ranks 25-51? How many warriors/mages etc, will have damage reduction consistently by the time the rager gets resist?

"This is where you lose me. You're complaining that ragers are overpowered yet you quote this statistic which completely contradicts your argument."

He is using it to qualify his statement that he knows something about the cabal, having fought against it, and in it. Keep in mind also he played an assassin(which does well vs. battle), and a fire giant warrior who was created?, geared(And grouped) to kill ragers.

"I never joke. You're kidding yourself if you think it's as hard to play a level 41 duergar warrior as it is to play a level 47+ duergar warrior."

Wow, your rager warrior was harder to play at hero then as a lowbie? No ####. It means you actually have to fight people who have full skill/spell sets and in most cases now are able to acquire consistent preps just so they can stay equal with you. You can't just steamroll people who dont have damage reduction and haste on a stick. Of course you got legacies and specs to balance it all out.

"Whaaa..? I must have missed the point. I thought you were complaining about ragers being overpowered. Since you played a duergar, I was taking that point of view."

Why sneak in a jab like that? The discussion was moving well. You are bringing up some valid points, i.e. ragers without the head get crushed, ragers cant use teleports etc. What isn't being said is that now, with all the tweaks to warriors (legacies, enhanced reactions, etc.) that those glaring weaknesses can be somewhat offset. I.e. I cannot quaff a teleport, but I can take the legacy that reduces lag so I can get away from those gangs(Jinroh for example), add in stuff like stun(dear god this skill is ridiculous imho) and it makes escaping(a rager drawback) a bit easier. Or, I can always sit up the destructors ass if I don't have the head and you can't summon me out.

Now, that all said, I don't think villagers are horribly overpowered, mostly for the reasons you say. What I would like to see is some sort of pro-rated level based resist damage reduction. For example, it gives less damage reduction when you first get it to reflect that most enemies you face won't have damage reduction. But by the time hero comes around its at its full strength to reflect that enemies you face will have more damage reduction. I like how thirst has drawbacks, I guess I'd just like to see more of battles powers have _some_ sort of drawback beyond "I gave up magic". Most characters who aren't caballed are going to have a ridiculous time fighting ragers until hero ranks, if for no other reason then it is impossible to maintain preps to meet the ragers ability to call his or her powers.

>Can a normal warrior with all the gatherable preps take a rager consistently from ranks 25-51? How many warriors/mages etc, will have damage reduction consistently by the time the rager gets resist?

Can a rager recall from a losing battle? No. Discussion ended. Rager are VERY VERY good at fighting, ####ing terrible at everything else.

Non-rager warriors are more spread in skillset.

"Can a rager recall from a losing battle? No."

Can a non-rager? No. But he can still run just like the villager if he isn't lagged out. The only difference is he can quaff.

"Discussion ended."

If you think not being able to recall is the end of the rager power discussion...well Ill just spare a snide remark.

"Rager are VERY VERY good at fighting, ####ing terrible at everything else."

Yes, thank you for clearing up that they are good at fighting and poor at casting spells.

"Non-rager warriors are more spread in skillset."

Non-rager warriors have no different skills then rager warriors unless they are spec/cabal specific.

"Can a rager recall from a losing battle? No."

Can a non-rager? No. But he can still run just like the villager if he isn't lagged out. The only difference is he can quaff.

1) That's a pretty huge difference. Of course, ragers have a lot harder time running- their options for protecting themselves from bash, trip, and related skills are far fewer. "If he isn't lagged out" is a very different situation for Battle and non-Battle.

"Discussion ended."

If you think not being able to recall is the end of the rager power discussion...well Ill just spare a snide remark.

He doesn't. But it's a huge difference.

"Rager are VERY VERY good at fighting, ####ing terrible at everything else."

Yes, thank you for clearing up that they are good at fighting and poor at casting spells.

They're also poor at covering the map, curing maledictions, healing, getting out of locked rooms, using the best equipment, and more.

You're glossing over huge, huge issues and pretending that being Battle just means you get some neat powers and can't quaff. I don't think you've made a point in any post on this thread that holds water.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Your problem here, really, is that you're trying to think of this in terms of how to take a non-Battle warrior and make them equal to a Battle warrior via preps or whatever. From that standpoint, Battle will always look deceptively good.

Battle always appears tough to newbies. It's usually not until you actually play Battle for a while that you really get it. Granaak seems to be a reasonably sharp guy; if Curgrim had made it to hero (Most of Battle's weaknesses don't really change throughout the levels, but some of them are easier to see as a Battle character at hero in my opinion), stuck around a bit longer, and lived through some hard times for Battle instead of relatively good/easy times to be Battle, I'm pretty sure he'd have started to see them.

"Granaak seems to be a reasonably sharp guy"

Oh I am a very sharp guy.

"Then why did Curgrim kill less and die more than every other character, including several non-Battle warriors, I've known you to play?"

Several non-battle warriors? Have you been snooping my play around characters?

I will have to start letting slip some well disguised anti-Nepenthe comments in game..I think your a relatively sharp guy as well, so I am sure you will catch them.

>"Then why did Curgrim kill less and die more than every other character, including several non-Battle warriors, I've known you to play?"

Several non-battle warriors? Have you been snooping my play around characters?

Heh. I was going to speculate something like this in my original post here after I couldn't find any warriors you claimed as your own in a couple searches aside from Gran and Curg, but decided to go for the tactful approach instead. Huzzah for your lack thereof, sir!!

If I'm not mistaken, you'd mentioned that Granaak wasn't your first warrior and commented a bit on what'd come before. If that's not enough of a full serious answer at this time, I offer the following in its place:

I have to give Enbuergo a run for your hand and heart somehow, and merciless stalking seemed like a great start.

>I have to give Enbuergo a run for your hand and heart somehow, and merciless stalking seemed like a great start.

Huh? Valg and I already eloped, and are doing just fine, thank you very much.

~

.

Granted these could be skewed due to me just doing a search for battle on the premium. I do believe that you can see a pattern here.

Tib
# of logins with their cabal item 47
# of logins without their cabal item 0
# of logouts with their cabal item 44
# of logouts without their cabal item 1
# of times they lost their cabal item 4
Artelin
# of logins with their cabal item 59
# of logins without their cabal item 4
# of logouts with their cabal item 58
# of logouts without their cabal item 1
# of times they lost their cabal item 5
Ritur
# of logins with their cabal item 52
# of logins without their cabal item 7
# of logouts with their cabal item 53
# of logouts without their cabal item 3
# of times they lost their cabal item 7
Rusenlan
# of logins with their cabal item 55
# of logins without their cabal item 2
# of logouts with their cabal item 49
# of logouts without their cabal item 2
# of times they lost their cabal item 8
Deolli
# of logins with their cabal item 40
# of logins without their cabal item 1
# of logouts with their cabal item 37
# of logouts without their cabal item 0
# of times they lost their cabal item 2
Draxidar
# of logins with their cabal item 78
# of logins without their cabal item 6
# of logouts with their cabal item 77
# of logouts without their cabal item 1
# of times they lost their cabal item 2

Battle has one real enemy and that is Empire. You could argue that Scion opposes them, but in truth that isn't true. The reason I say that isn't true is because Scion numbers are so limited. Even if there are enough heros to kill the Destructor, they don't have any younger members to defend it. As far as Empire being an enemy that could easily be changed ic.

.

"Your problem here, really, is that you're trying to think of this in terms of how to take a non-Battle warrior and make them equal to a Battle warrior via preps or whatever. From that standpoint, Battle will always look deceptively good."

So let me understand, You are saying that a Battle warrior is better then any other warrior despite preps/cabals etc? How is that different from what I was saying? Battle doesn't look deceptively good. It is good, and the number of kills their members are putting up reflects this. Yes they may die a considerable amount as well, but that also reflects their drawbacks. In essence, you chose a tiny part of my post, made a vague generalization, and danced around the subject without commenting on any specific part of my post.

"Battle always appears tough to newbies."

Uh ok, not sure if you were trying to call me a newbie, but I've smacked plenty of titled/decked/leadership position villagers in my day.

"It's usually not until you actually play Battle for a while that you really get it."

I've fought Battle members with every character I've played on CF with the exception of maybe my thieves. I dont play the cabal because a) I think warriors are cheesy, and b) I think Battle is cheesy, as well as c) I dont like their restrictions. You can point to c) and say I told you so, but the restrictions on a class don't make their powers any less powerful. It just means you eat #### sometimes because of RP when another character wouldn't. This is offset by the fact that you have nasty powers every time you aren't eating ####. Even with the heavy restrictions Battle still has the best powers in the game. And keep in mind that without the head they are the exact same as a non-caballed warrior with detect_invis and no other preps.

"Granaak seems to be a reasonably sharp guy"

Agreed.

"if Curgrim had made it to hero (Most of Battle's weaknesses don't really change throughout the levels, but some of them are easier to see as a Battle character at hero in my opinion), stuck around a bit longer, and lived through some hard times for Battle instead of relatively good/easy times to be Battle, I'm pretty sure he'd have started to see them."

And that is exactly my point. Melee classes are generally more powerful at lower ranks, and mages are more balanced at high ranks. Why give a cabal that is primarily melees more oomph at the low levels? Why not gear their powers to be better at hero, which is when they really need it. As far as hard times go, thats a lame response, because any race/class/cabal combo is going to struggle if they are all alone in the CF world of gangs. The point of the matter lies in the opinions of a group of your players, that some of Battle's powers in todays game need a bit of tweaking to reflect the changes that have gone on in the game since Battle came to be.

You seem like a smart, rational guy, and you are probably the most respected from a game standpoint of anyone on CF, so I will choose my words very carefully...Instead of beginning with the belief that Battle has no problems with their powers, why don't you critically assess them from the other side of the coin, and get back to us. If after that you still think they are dead-on fine, well then I'll read your reasons and make my own assesments from the other side :)

>So let me understand, You are saying that a Battle warrior is
>better then any other warrior despite preps/cabals etc?

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying if you choose to look at ANY character in the game SOLELY in the aspect it is strongest at while ignoring all other points, it looks great, and that's what you're doing. It is, to me, as pointless and as asinine as saying Tribunal warrior is overpowered because it has the highest salary in the game.

>Uh ok, not sure if you were trying to call me a newbie, but
>I've smacked plenty of titled/decked/leadership position
>villagers in my day.

No, that was just a generalization. I don't really know anything about you.

But, since you're saying further down that you've never played Battle or a warrior seriously? Newbie. Newbie newbie newbie. There, I said it.

>And that is exactly my point. Melee classes are generally more
>powerful at lower ranks, and mages are more balanced at high
>ranks. Why give a cabal that is primarily melees more oomph at
>the low levels?

They have less at low and more at high in several respects. If you're not aware of this, this isn't a discussion worth having.

>Instead of beginning
>with the belief that Battle has no problems with their powers,
>why don't you critically assess them from the other side of
>the coin, and get back to us.

I have. In case my reputation doesn't preceed me, like Zharradam, while I've certainly played Battle a time or twelve, I'm serially anything but. I feel genuinely sorry for Battle and how easy 99% of them are to kill for anyone with half an understanding of their weaknesses.

I'm not going to provide a list of those weaknesses because:

A) I understand you're just going to dismiss it anyway, and there's really nothing for me to gain by convincinging you that's more important to me than, say, another ten minutes sleep tonight.

B) Some things are for the players to figure out. It's not my place to spell everything out.

C) Some of how it all fits together and the timing and subtleties of it you honestly do just have to seriously play Battle for a while and keep your eyes open to figure out. Little details like knowing the places various kinds of Battle can't go, either literally or practically. Little details like knowing how long it takes them to recover from various damage and conditions, either with or without a defender. Knowing which maledictions #### up a Rager if he can't get back to the village fast, and which ones #### them up period regardless. Knowing which gear they'll want to use to fight you, but aren't allowed to use, or can't get short of PK. Knowing all the hundreds of ways you can indirectly force them to eat a death. Knowing all the times a Rager is trapped or crippled when no other character in the game not a newbie should be. It goes on, and on, and on.

"I'm saying if you choose to look at ANY character in the game SOLELY in the aspect it is strongest at while ignoring all other points, it looks great, and that's what you're doing. It is, to me, as pointless and as asinine as saying Tribunal warrior is overpowered because it has the highest salary in the game."

This is a false statement, never once did I ignore Battle's drawbacks. I said that DESPITE them, they are still strong, but whatever.

"But, since you're saying further down that you've never played Battle or a warrior seriously? Newbie. Newbie newbie newbie. There, I said it."

Hahahhahahahahahahaha. Oh no, Nepenthe called me a newb! In all seriousness and not in mean or questioning way, when was the last serious character you played?

"They have less at low and more at high in several respects. If you're not aware of this, this isn't a discussion worth having."

Um, ok. If you say so. Look at the Monkey.

"I have. In case my reputation doesn't preceed me, like Zharradam, while I've certainly played Battle a time or twelve, I'm serially anything but. I feel genuinely sorry for Battle and how easy 99% of them are to kill for anyone with half an understanding of their weaknesses."

You know, I could give 2 ####s about your reputation. I dont care that 10 years ago you played some bad ass lich or that five years ago you played some uber dude who was 1000000-0 pk wise. I give a damn if you say "Hey I just got done playing a character who was 25-0 vs. Battle, here is a link to his/her PBF. Until you point me in that direction and offer PROOF that Battle is so hard to play, I simply don't believe you. Does Battle die a lot? #### yeah. But they also kill a hell of a lot, as well as (And this is a major point) they dont have to spend hours gathering preps that may or may not be in, and may or may not work. Thats the real gripe of most players. While we are out spending hours gathering preps and ####, these guys do a "call resist" and then you get to spend 10 more hours gathering preps just to fight them. Give scions a barrier cabal power at the same rank Battle gets resist and I think you'd see a lot of complaints. But I can't argue with you imms, its pointless. Just like when I said Manacles could use tweaking when I first came here, and you told me they were fine (you meaning staff). And everybody knows Manacles hasn't changed, right?

"A) I understand you're just going to dismiss it anyway, and there's really nothing for me to gain by convincinging you that's more important to me than, say, another ten minutes sleep tonight."

No, Im not going to just dismiss it if you offer something other then an opinion. Offer some hard evidence, otherwise all you are saying is an opinion. Down this thread someone posts a bunch of villagers PBF records of how many times they logged in without the head. I've logged in more times in a day without another cabals item that these guys have in a whole lifetime. But don't take my word for it, you could always talk to the last Battle player you immed. Oh wait, he also said part of the village powers need to be tweaked. Is he a newbie too?

"B) Some things are for the players to figure out. It's not my place to spell everything out."

Yawn.

"Little details like knowing the places various kinds of Battle can't go, either literally or practically."

What places that are magical, like Organia? Ive been ganged by Battle in there.

"Little details like knowing how long it takes them to recover from various damage and conditions, either with or without a defender."

Thats fine, they just run and hide under the destructor. Or at least the last 90% of them I've fought. How many mid-ranks are going to hit Big D to get a half-dead rager?

"Knowing which maledictions #### up a Rager if he can't get back to the village fast, and which ones #### them up period regardless."

Landing these maledictions if you aren't a melee/communer is not something easy if the rager is smart, but yes, this is a valid point.

"Knowing which gear they'll want to use to fight you, but aren't allowed to use, or can't get short of PK."

Never have I seen a rager who struggled because of gear or lack thereof. Not saying it isn't an issue, only I haven't seen it.

"Knowing all the hundreds of ways you can indirectly force them to eat a death."

Smart ragers aren't that easy to make do anything.

"Knowing all the times a Rager is trapped or crippled when no other
character in the game not a newbie should be."

This is a legitimate point, a certain area surrounding a city comes to mind. Then I think back to the 200 logs posted of paladins summoning away non-evil villagers to save them.

"It goes on, and on, and on."

Yeah it does. And still Battle keeps trucking while other cabals have had what, maybe 2 complaints ever about? Even the government changes rules and regulations to fit the times, pity CF only does in areas they feel are important. In the end it comes down to me not really caring anymore about this thread, its obvious we disagree.

(Re: Nepenthe): You know, I could give 2 ####s about your reputation.

You should probably be aware that anyone who is going to make changes to Battle feels otherwise. Nepenthe's been on staff a long-ass time, he's played as and against Battle countless times, and he's been successful with both. You can stick your fingers in your ears and make unreasonable demands of him revealing his own characters, but we're not required to give a ####.

And still Battle keeps trucking while other cabals have had what, maybe 2 complaints ever about?

What forums are you reading? People complain about every cabal except Herald.

That said, we don't change things purely because people complain about them. We change things when those claims are backed up by evidence, and frankly the only difference between Battle's PK numbers and the PK numbers of any other cabal is that they die more. Out of the 25 living characters with the most kills, there are 3 Battleragers.... and 3 Outlanders, 3 Empire, 2 Fortress, and 3 Scions. (Those numbers are terribly normal, although Tribunals usually creep onto that list.) Those three deadliest Ragers are a combined 208-153. (Again, terribly normal. Non-newbie non-Battle people rarely see death counts that high.) Where are these mythical Ragers who destroy everything in their path? Livion was damn tough and clearly knew what he was doing, and still took way more losses than any veteran player does.

Even the government changes rules and regulations to fit the times, pity CF only does in areas they feel are important.

Wait. You're complaining that we only change things that we feel are important? What policy should we adopt?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

There isn't any stat for sheer luck kills. If there were, I think village berserkers might top that list. There isn't any stat to determine how much preparation time went in to getting hero-level kills, villagers might be at the bottom of that list.

So a question that gets raised is are they villagers getting cheap & easy kills, and are they fair and balanced. I've stated more than once that my answer to both of those questions is yes (or at the very least yes, and maybe). Villagers are going to on occasion get a lucky kill, and there is a lot less work in call resist and call thirst then there is in gathering up haste and damage reduction preps. As numerous others have done though, any arguement that doesn't point out how many times they are killed where any non-village warrior would have survived is lopsided.

If you hate prepping, all you care about is racking up a lot of pks and don't mind sucking up a lot of deaths in the process, battle is practically tailor made for you.

I agree kill counts are one factor in a large picture.

There isn't any stat to determine how much preparation time went in to getting hero-level kills, villagers might be at the bottom of that list.

Yup. Battle berserker has a way to become "tough", while simultaneously being capped from being "very tough". They also have restrictions on who and how they can engage people, which makes them less tough than they look in the all-too-standard "Plop both people in a room and say go" analysis.

If you hate prepping, all you care about is racking up a lot of pks and don't mind sucking up a lot of deaths in the process, battle is practically tailor made for you.

A lot of the time you save by not acquiring prep-type items is negated by all that extra regear time, however. Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a cabal option that basically says "The plus is, you can't prep much. The minus is, you can't prep much."

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

"Nepenthe's been on staff a long-ass time, he's played as and against Battle countless times, and he's been successful with both."

Thats peachy. Some of the players commenting on this thread have the same things being said about them, yet you dismiss their opinions and give his more weight? Ok.

I meant my question with all due respect to Nepenthe, Im fairly certain hes earned his respect on this MUD. I just wanted to know if he could give any evidence to support what he was saying.

"You can stick your fingers in your ears and make unreasonable demands of him revealing his own characters, but we're not required to give a ####."

The thing is, Im not required to give a #### either. Your playerbase shrinks every day, you'd think you'd be more willing to try and please the customers your business is trying to service, when the FACT is you seem to be trying to increase your customer base each day with buttons, voting etc. What business is going to survive if they are constantly telling their customers "We don't give a #### about pleasing you" when the fact is they aren't getting new customers at a rate enough to replace the ones leaving? I could see if I was the only person bringing up issues with the cabal, but there has been a constant demand (Since I began cf) for this cabals powers to be looked at impartially. But keep telling us we don't know what the hell we are talking about.

"What forums are you reading? People complain about every cabal except Herald."

Are you seriously going to tell me that Battle's powers aren't the most complained about? Please. The thing is you've tweaked other cabals powers when enough of an uproar is raised, why is Battle immune to this?

"That said, we don't change things purely because people complain about them."

This statement...I don't even know how to respond to. Do you change things then when your (meaning coders) mortals die to these things? I just don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

"the only difference between Battle's PK numbers and the PK numbers of any other cabal is that they die more. Out of the 25 living characters with the most kills, there are 3 Battleragers.... and 3 Outlanders, 3 Empire, 2 Fortress, and 3 Scions."

Now I respect this statement because you offer evidence to support it. Now how many kills per hour do each have? A rager can be back on his feet a lot faster then a wand-user. The time-sink issue is to me (and a lot of people bringing up points) one of the issues at heart of Battle's powers. So how about refining your proof to include kills per hour, or deaths per hour. Then get back to me on this. If the evidence still supports your beliefs, Ill be surprised.

"Livion was damn tough and clearly knew what he was doing, and still took way more losses than any veteran player does."

Now here is where I make you eat those words. Livion played for 283 hours and racked up 130pks. Which means he killed someone around once every two hours. On top of that, he had 27pdeaths. Which is one about every 10 hours. Compare that to the last Scion Chancellor, Runaktla, who had 465 hours with 95pks, and 52pdeaths. Not to mention he is a transmuter who can duo! So if Livion continues to play for 180 more hours, he might take 18 more deaths. Putting him around 45pdeaths for the same amount of time as Runaktla(This is obviously theoretical). If going by the same pk increase, he have had 90 more pks in the same amount of time, giving him 220pks, with 45pdeaths, in theory. That stands up a ####load better then Runaktla's 95pks and 52pdeaths! And to top it off Runaktla can use magic!! Wheee. Now obviously this theoretical example isn't going to be entirely accurate. How about we put up someone like Granaak to offer a bit better comparison. He had 321 hours, 170pks and 30 pdeaths. Around the same kill rate, and around the same death rate. Not to mention Granaak was around the time when Scion was very strong. Are you still going to tell me that "Livion was damn tough and clearly knew what he was doing, and still took way more losses than any veteran player does." No you aren't.

"Wait. You're complaining that we only change things that we feel are important? What policy should we adopt?"

Well, thats really your decision. Im not saying change stuff the minute people complain, Im saying that if enough people complain you should be at least willing to admit that MAYBE something might need tweaked. Right now you aren't willing to admit anything that could possibly be construed as you(Meaning the staff) were possibly incorrect about something. Perhaps one day Ill meet these mythical folks who never are wrong, all I can say is that I am smarter then most people I meet IRL and I am wrong every day.

"That said, we don't change things purely because people complain about them."

This statement...I don't even know how to respond to. Do you change things then when your (meaning coders) mortals die to these things? I just don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

It means what it says. If someone complains about something, we'll look at it, but the existence of complaints doesn't mean we will (or should) make any changes.

The rest of your post isn't worth the time it would take to answer.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

And let me say I am sorry this thread got jacked. Let me summarize my point and well all agree that we differ on opinions, and that is fine. My point is not even as far as Jinroh is saying, with that they are overpowered. What it boils down to for me is time. A Battle member can spend more time fighting, which as Jinroh says makes them consistently stronger. My point of opinion being that preparing for a pk with a battle character, in a time spent essence, is disproportionately lower than their enemies time spent preparing for the same fight with said Villager. That's all. If you want to dispute it, be my guest, I just posted what facts that you yourselves made public to support my argument. I certainly am not privy to things you may know so if despite the arguments made here you still think Battle is completely balanced, Ill agree to disagree, yet will also admit that I could quite possibly be wrong as well. I still like enough of CF to play here and I just hope that you guys will see what I am trying to offer as constructive criticism and not "trying to complain to mask my shortcomings" as I believe you think I am. See you in the fields.

>I could see if I was
>the only person bringing up issues with the cabal, but there
>has been a constant demand (Since I began cf) for this cabals
>powers to be looked at impartially.

I'm always looking at any number of things.

Problem is, you're not asking for 'looked at'. You're getting 'looked at' and you don't like it. What you want is 'changed to suit you' and I'm not going to give you that at this time in this case.

If I made a change to Battle's powers this week, without question, it would be to make them marginally stronger.

Battleragers are simpler, easier to use, easier to understand, and easier to play. You have everything you would ever want as a warrior type. Its all rolled up into one tight little ball. I would give up recall if I had basic immunity to spells. I would gladly give up teleport for permenant true sight (detect invis and magic so I can see what is being used against me)/cure blind for 10 mana. I would, and do, in a heartbeat give up haste/stone skin/shield for resistance 100% of the time, not only is it simpler, easier, quicker, less annoying, its better!

Its a basic concept of life. Consistency equals better, more quality work then anything else. I mean if you ran a business would you rather have your tools 80% of the time, or the best tools in the world for 10% of the time, and pieces of stone for the other 90%? I cannot tell you the number of times that I have said to myself as a non-battlerager, "Man I would rather be a battlerager and not have to deal with all this stupid hoop jumping to get preps." Even mages have to hoop jump and gather preps to stand up to a rager one on one. The answer cannot, and should not be, Gang them.

You must also take Aiekooso's little fact finding to heart, they all had the head, by the numbers, approximately 90% of the time or more! Battle doesn't have a single enemy focusing just on them as they did with Masters. Which is part of the reason their powers are out of wack now.

Your statements that they miss out on the best equipment in the game is false in my eyes. There is no piece of magical equipment that cannot be found in a non-magical form in the game when dealing with avg. of weapon, or +hit and damage of armor, or save versus spell. They miss out on some pretty progs, and thats truly about it. At no time did I ever say with any of my battleragers, "Damn wish I could use that." I take that back, one time, boots of speed, but then again most people don't even know they exist so, and even less know how to get them. And granted I would not waste that much time getting them so :).

As to Nepenthe's compliment, Thanks, thats means a lot. But unfortunately (or fortunately) you do not see my failures in the non-battlerager world. I have never had a failure battlerager from Glaus on, and Glaus being my first real character. I have had many failure warrior type non-battleragers, including one or two failed Empire warriors. One somewhat recently.

I guess it comes down to that I'm not a hoop jumper. I don't like having to take lots of agonizing long periods of time to have short moments of fun. Ragers are such the opposite, bing, bing, bing, better then 85% of all non-ragers, almost all the time. And even if the person preps to be on par, it can and most likely will be "wasted" prep, because that person they are fighting most likely will get away. And so your time spent prepping feels like wasted time with no gain. To a player who fights battleragers, especially berserkers, their kills seem exeedingly cheap, unearned, and lucky. And the feeling of disgust ways in, and the fun stick stops moving.

Fighting berserker ragers especially is like rolling loaded dice at a craps table. It may hit sometimes 6 or 8, but because they are loaded, most of the time its a 7, and you crap out, and die. Because of that I gang the crap out of berserkers and thats the only time I fight them. And more and more of the playerbase is doing this. Angry non-ragers ganging, angry berserker ragers crying about being ganged.

You may have to stop saying that if a battlerager does good its not because of powers but of player. And come to the conclusion that people do well with battleragers is because their powers are overpowered now.

And a final note, there is one battlerager berserker warrior that failed, as in had about a 50% pk ratio. That was my felar warrior hand to hand spec only warrior that never wore any equipment ever. I believe Revin was his name, and he got to about level 44 or so. And honestly I did pretty damn well still. A failure in my book, probably not in a lot of others.

I agree with far too much stated to quote....BUT:

"To a player who fights battleragers, especially berserkers, their kills seem exeedingly cheap, unearned, and lucky. And the feeling of disgust ways in, and the fun stick stops moving."

Exactly. The fun stops.

>"Little details like knowing the places various kinds of
>Battle can't go, either literally or practically."
>
>What places that are magical, like Organia? Ive been ganged by
>Battle in there.

No, not like that.

>"Little details like knowing how long it takes them to recover
>from various damage and conditions, either with or without a
>defender."
>
>Thats fine, they just run and hide under the destructor. Or at
>least the last 90% of them I've fought. How many mid-ranks are
>going to hit Big D to get a half-dead rager?

Not too many, at least not without help.

If you're telling me you can't make something useful out of "This person will be in no position to fight me for 20 ticks, even if I might not be able to get to him to finish the job", you still have a lot to learn about the strategy of CF.

Consider also that Battle on their best day doesn't really have infinite movement points and no magical transport. There's a number of implications to that as well, all of which are useful.

There's little in the way of a "I ownzor Battle" silver bullet in the game; what there are are a thousand different drops in the "I ownzor Battle" water bucket. Taken together, they really do add up. There are a lot of bad situations that other characters can get caught in that Battle will get caught in every time. The reliability of that 'every time' is a big help in planning.

>"Knowing which maledictions #### up a Rager if he can't get
>back to the village fast, and which ones #### them up period
>regardless."
>
>Landing these maledictions if you aren't a melee/communer is
>not something easy if the rager is smart, but yes, this is a
>valid point.

See above with the droplets thing; I think every character has something that's scary to Battle. Disrupt organ, for example, is hard as hell to really land on Battle, but a lot of Ragers might not be able to live through a good one on their best day, no matter what they do.

>"Knowing which gear they'll want to use to fight you, but
>aren't allowed to use, or can't get short of PK."
>
>Never have I seen a rager who struggled because of gear or
>lack thereof. Not saying it isn't an issue, only I haven't
>seen it.

It's not that Battle can't get decent or even good gear, but more that a lot of the best gear is totally off limits to them. If I look at what I would consider to be a "good set" for most characters I'll play, Battle isn't allowed to wear at least half of it.

This also includes some very handy utility-ish items.

>"Knowing all the hundreds of ways you can indirectly force
>them to eat a death."
>
>Smart ragers aren't that easy to make do anything.

Nope; however, I'd argue that there are more ways to trap or screw a smart Rager than a smart almost anything else.

>This is a legitimate point, a certain area surrounding a city
>comes to mind. Then I think back to the 200 logs posted of
>paladins summoning away non-evil villagers to save them.

There aren't exactly 200 logs of that. If someone wants to post that to Dioxide's rather than send it to the Battle imms so they can bitch and feel better rather than get something done, that's not really my fault.

>Yeah it does. And still Battle keeps trucking while other
>cabals have had what, maybe 2 complaints ever about?

Heh. No.

Most of the Battle complainers are people who serially play not Battle. Jinroh's kind of a special case, and even he generally is just complaining about deathblow as someone best known recently for playing a defender.

>Even the
>government changes rules and regulations to fit the times,
>pity CF only does in areas they feel are important.

Wait. Are you saying the government intentionally spends its time changing rules and regulations that they feel are meaningless, i.e., not important? This claim seems dubious to me.

I have played warriors both in ragers and without. I have played every class within ragers and without. I have played every path of battleragers as well as playing them before they were split, numerous times. I have fought battleragers from almost every angle in reference to cabals.

And hands down the battleragers have been easier and fighting against them is harder because of a couple simple points.

1. You know what you get with a rager and you can't get any better. You don't have to bother with preps you don't have to bother with anything, you have three actions and you become more formitable then most warrior types can ever get, and you have it 100% of the time when you have the head. Never unprepared, always ready to fight. A non-battlerager can perhaps reach the level a rager is at 5 to 10% of the time he is about, and that requires prepping and going and getting items, which takes more time. This is the biggest and best advantage that overshadows everything else. Being without the head basically makes you like what a non-rager is 80 or so percent of the time. Normal warriors cannot be prepped all the times and pay for it with time and sweat, battleragers can be prepped 100% of the time and only have to defend the most difficult and powerful inner guardian in the game.

2. Not using magic is NOT as huge of a crying drawback that other people say it is. After playing so many ragers, teleport/recall makes you predictable and actually allowed me to kill more people then just running away. I have ways of dealing haste/sanctuary/etc. especially with the advent of legacies, which in my opinion has made battle warriors even more disgustingly powerful.

As final evidence to this post. Jinroh was 208 to 78 losses, where 15 or so of those losses were to immortal slays when I immorted. I was basically 208 to 65. I went through a total purge of the village during the most difficult of times. I dealt with a time, almost 2 weeks where berserkers were not even allowed in the cabal yet. I went through a time where there were no responsive battle immortals, I went through the worst and the best times. I was also a defender, and in 500 some hours I killed 200+ people, by myself. That was because I had perm 30% dam redux, that I had spellbane and I knew how to use it, which basically made me immune to both spells and with the save versus spells, communes as well. There were so many situations where if I was not a battlerager, I would have been killed in 4 rounds or so.

I am sorry all, but I just can't see it why people can still say battleragers are not out of wack with the current cabal/mud situation. Perhaps 7 years ago they were balanced, but not now. I have done it all involving battleragers and almost all non-battleragers, and without a doubt in my eyes, battleragers need to be changed.

Supa-snip.

>I was basically 208 to 65.

All that said, can you name another serious character of yours that had that "bad" of a PK ratio? I can't. Even zero-skills-trained warrior beat the #### out of that.

This would suggest to me that most of that ratio would be player and not so much powers.

I had a duergar warrior in ragers and it was probably the easiest rager I've ever had. And that was when I had the wrath deficiency, not just whitesteel. It's definately not as hard as you might think it is.

That depends a lot, honestly, on what else is strong or in vogue. Strong here is defined as either having overwhelming numbers or a few very strong players.

If Outlander is strong, it sucks to be the duergar rager.
If Fortress is strong, it sucks to be the duergar rager.
If some high-end players are playing paladins, or worse, duergar-hating druids (note: this commentary is not by a longshot primarily sunray-based), it sucks to be the duergar rager.

On the other hand, if assassinating assassin is in vogue, it sucks to be any warrior rager but duergar. There are always trade-offs.

But part of the reason I created Jinroh was because Fortress was super powerful and had many paladins. I wanted them to want to fight me. And I fought through the most difficult times of Fortress power. And as you can see, I killed a whole lot of them. In fact, in the logs I posted here on this site, there is a log of me going down to underdark to dark elf city and killing 5 of the goodies ranking on dark elves. And this was at mid-range, specifically the time you said would suck for a duergar warrior if the above factors were in power. I never had any serious problems with paladins, outlanders, or druids or Fortress, except in a serious gang. Which was even more dangerous for non-battleragers.

Getting away from them. Not fighting them. Single paladins with many virtues were almost unkillable :).

berserks with a half ass set tear through the majority of people in a few round. Forget it if your an AP you are going to die period unless by a miricle your sleep spell lands.... and if it does't whats the point of trying?

Some A-P players tend to see Battle, especially berserkers, as being their worst nightmare and run like crazy from them.

Some A-P players tend to see Battle, especially berserkers, as food and generally the most reliable way to get kills and a quick set of decent to good warrior-ish gear (pre-36) or unholy charges (post-36).

I'm in the latter camp, though I can understand the point of view of the former to a degree.

As an A-P I always saw fighting berserkers as a great throw of the dice. If you're actually thinking about how to fight, you're going to reliably send them packing, then kill them due to their lack of ability to get further away than you can follow. If I'm not really thinking about what I'm doing, I expect to see myself dead before they're writhing, and have my nicer pieces missing, some destroyed and some worn, and the unholy certainly broken. If I feel like acting the fool in this situation, I'm keeping gold in the bank to save my con.

As for your train of thought, if I meet a player that can PK me as reliably as you can, I'm going to #### a brick. Alot of people see "I can double my damage at random intervals because of my powers" and run for the hills. I stopped caring about all that when certain skills (read: Ambush, Backstab, Pincer, Charge Set, et al.) lost the deathblow ability. Unless they haven't, and I'll let ignorance be my bliss. The nightmare of fighting rager berserkers is that all of a sudden, hitting them harder and more often than they hit you seems difficult. It's doable, but it really isn't the same as waxing a similarly geared warrior of any other grouping. I'm sure that a PKer of your caliber has learned years ago how to dance circles around the berserker, and capitalize on their ability to flee and run rather than quaff. It's the ability you have to make them flee, though, that allows for this. Until the standard player learns to do that, they can't fall into the latter grouping.

(Mostly because I believe you're better off learning on your own)

Dependant upon the race/class/path of the battlerager, they all have some glaring weaknesses which a smart A-P can use to beat Villagers 100% of the time. As for other classes, there are definitely ways to take down Villagers and some things work way better and way more often than others, and are far more easily achieved by more average players. Shamans for example are pretty good at killing Ragers in general.

Nothing is 100%, period.

Can you point me to some logs of people putting up these huge kills on Battle #'s? Or some names or PBF locations?

I did a search on both pages, and I couldn't find any other warriors Granaak claimed he played aside Curgrim and Granaak. Not sure what you're talking about, chief.

Well, this is certainly a discussion that I'd love to offer my opinions on. First off, battle is in serious power now, so yes they do seem like they are overpowered. Second, the cabal has some strong leadership so its weaker players tend to show up and eventually get the hang of things. As for those of you that have never played a rager.....don't hate them until you play them. I must have had to play at least 5 ragers before I got the hang of them and began to kill more people than I was killed. It's a tough goddamed thing to take on the world...because believe it or not, battle fights nearly everyone and everything. I am just waiting for the next empire upswing, or scion upswing to level battle again...then maybe you will see that they are not as powerful as your thinking. Just my 2 cents, not trying to piss in anyone's cherios

ciao

Acaga

They are easy to use but they are limited.
Of course, as a berserker you can kill newbies like bunnies and get those 200 pkills,
but against skilled players in hero range ragers are doomed.
And your pk ratio is not going to be great.

Ragers SHOULD be somewhat tough.
You want to downgrade them in fighting aspect to match non/semi-prepared warriors
without upgrading them in any other aspect like recall potions,
wide choice of gear, ability to group and work with mages, etc.

Ragers are dangeroues but when you are ready and prepared for them, they are easy targets.

And
I like good gear! :)
I mean really good gear. Most of things I would want to use are anti-rager. Poor them.

With two my last characters I did fine against ragers in PK,
Grottimgesh ( 29-1 ), Nabburak ( 15-0 ), so I don't believe they are overpowered.

Another thing that almost every veteran may notice:
95% of people who compains about ragers never seriously played one ( for a long time and in hero range ).
And while I don't share that attitude "try before complain",
in this particular case I will tell you exactly that.

P.S. Glaus was a whiner. I remember it well.