nepenthe | Thu 29-Mar-01 12:08 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
3430 posts
| |
|
#55, "two points (and the crowd goes wild)"
|
If it's possible to suggest such a thing without giving offense, I really think you should just chill and back off from this topic, ArChaos. You're not really doing a whole lot more here than spitting bile, and from what I remember of your posts in the last incarnation of the forum, you're better than that.
I did want to comment on two specific points:
> So why change it?
There were a lot of complaints about practicing. In addition, you have to admit that it seems kind of silly that you could be surrounded by a bunch of kittens for a few game-hours and from this experience learn as much as there is to know about parrying attacks for life.
Some people have said: Well, if people are complaining about time spent practicing, then why not just make it much easier? At that point, I can't see bothering with skills at all anymore. Anyone who is high enough level for parry, assume them to have it at 100%. Any sword specialist warrior high enough for riposte, assume them to have it at 100%, etc. Why bother with the charade that anyone but the greenest newbie would have any skill lower than 100%?
I suspect the real issue is that a lot of players put in some time to have 100%'s and assumed that hardly anyone was doing the same. The reality is that a lot of people were. Of those that didn't, some were utter newbies who would have lost to these midbies anyway, and some were top-end players who didn't have the skills and were treating the practiced midbies like real convicts treat white-collar criminals in a maximum security prison anyway. If we've taken their placebo away, I suppose I should apologize.
> In fact i challenge you to make a rager warrior without > practicing your skills -at- all and you can prove me wrong, > but until you name one, i'm sorry but i don't believe you.
I've seen a fair number of warriors, some of which were Ragers and some of which weren't, that did just that and were successful. I don't think it would be fair of me to name names for several reasons, one of which being that some of these characters may have lied about their level of practiceness in cabal interviews or otherwise.
This, in fact, is what started to turn me around on the practicing issue -- I used to be as big a believer in the myth as anyone. I would see some warrior running around solo with a massively (95%+) favorable PK ratio and think, man this guy must have everything at 100. Then I'd look at their skills and see something like parry in the low 80s and dodge in the 70s. I've now seen that phenomena too many times to believe it was purely luck.
|
|
|
The Practicing Trap.
[View all] , Valguarnera, Fri 23-Mar-01 03:34 PM
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Arolin (Guest),
06-Sep-01 08:38 PM, #50
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
sandeep (Guest),
03-Sep-01 10:28 PM, #45
Newbiedom,
nepenthe,
04-Sep-01 09:46 AM, #48
RE: Newbiedom,
sandeep (Guest),
04-Sep-01 09:40 PM, #49
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Gilrex (Guest),
19-Apr-01 02:55 PM, #22
Only Phyisical defense skills have changed, not spells ...,
Kaldar (Guest),
19-Apr-01 04:26 PM, #23
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Magic 8 ball (Guest),
27-Mar-01 11:45 PM, #10
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Mynawk (Guest),
29-Mar-01 12:22 PM, #18
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Jhyrbian,
27-Mar-01 04:05 PM, #3
RE: Jhyrbian vs. The Practicing Trap.,
Valguarnera,
27-Mar-01 06:59 PM, #5
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Sylvan Bear (Guest),
27-Mar-01 03:46 PM, #2
RE: The Practicing Trap.,
Valguarnera,
27-Mar-01 07:13 PM, #6
Ill take that dare!,
Oddjob,
20-Apr-01 02:26 PM, #24
Um.,
nepenthe,
22-Apr-01 01:07 PM, #26
....,
Oddjob,
23-Apr-01 12:57 PM, #27
RE: ....,
nepenthe,
23-Apr-01 02:04 PM, #28
RE: ....,
Tolingauroth (Guest),
03-Sep-01 11:10 PM, #47
RE: ....,
Boldereth,
13-Mar-03 05:10 PM, #52
Hmm...,
Trewyn (Guest),
27-Mar-01 11:27 PM, #9
RE: Hmm...,
Kah (Guest),
28-Mar-01 09:46 AM, #11
I was beginning to wonder,
Scarabaeus,
28-Mar-01 09:55 AM, #12
A few points Kah.,
Jhyrbian,
28-Mar-01 11:42 PM, #16
RE: A few points Kah.,
Kah (Guest),
29-Mar-01 01:43 PM, #19
RE: A few points Kah.,
Tolingauroth (Guest),
02-Sep-01 10:43 PM, #40
RE: A few points Kah.,
sandeep (Guest),
03-Sep-01 09:23 PM, #42
RE: Hmm...,
sandeep (Guest),
03-Sep-01 10:16 PM, #44
RE: Hmm...,
TheFirstApostle (Guest),
28-Mar-01 11:29 AM, #13
RE: Hmm...,
sandeep (Guest),
03-Sep-01 10:39 PM, #46
RE: Hmm...,
sandeep (Guest),
03-Sep-01 10:07 PM, #43
ArChaos, post removed,
Scarabaeus,
27-Mar-01 12:31 PM, #1
RE: ArChaos, post removed,
ArChaos,
27-Mar-01 05:05 PM, #4
Nope.,
Valguarnera,
27-Mar-01 07:20 PM, #7
ArChaos' quote, text quoted with objectionable portion ...,
Valguarnera,
28-Mar-01 04:47 PM, #14
Sorry you don't make much sense to me,
ArChaos,
28-Mar-01 07:52 PM, #15
two points (and the crowd goes wild),
nepenthe,
29-Mar-01 12:08 AM #17
ArChaos, post removed (advice inside),
Scarabaeus,
29-Mar-01 02:53 PM, #20
RE: two points (and the crowd goes wild),
Gabe,
29-Mar-01 03:49 PM, #21
RE: two points (and the crowd goes wild),
sandeep (Guest),
27-Aug-01 03:26 AM, #31
if you have to ask. . .,
nepenthe,
27-Aug-01 10:15 AM, #32
RE: if you have to ask. . .,
sandeep (Guest),
27-Aug-01 08:46 PM, #35
RE: two points (and the crowd goes wild),
Valguarnera,
27-Aug-01 10:22 AM, #33
RE: two points (and the crowd goes wild),
sandeep (Guest),
27-Aug-01 08:37 PM, #34
RE: Sorry you don't make much sense to me,
Tolingauroth (Guest),
02-Sep-01 11:30 PM, #41
RE: Sorry you don't make much sense to me,
incognito,
05-Mar-03 08:33 AM, #51
RE: Nope.,
sandeep (Guest),
27-Aug-01 03:07 AM, #30
RE: Nope.,
ArChaos,
28-Aug-01 01:50 AM, #36
RE: Nope.,
sandeep (Guest),
31-Aug-01 07:55 AM, #37
RE: Nope.,
ArChaos,
31-Aug-01 08:29 AM, #38
RE: Nope.,
sandeep (Guest),
31-Aug-01 10:33 PM, #39
RE: ArChaos, post removed,
Sandello,
27-Mar-01 07:26 PM, #8
RE: ArChaos, post removed,
Oddjob,
20-Apr-01 02:35 PM, #25
RE: ArChaos, post removed,
Isildur,
04-May-01 06:57 PM, #29
| |
|