I'm trying to grasp the appeal behind this class after listening to some rather one-sided conversations over the past week and a half particularly, and recalling them from before too.

Why do people play such a seemingly maoschistic class? The losses tend to be ridiculously out of proportion with the gains. No one is realistically going to make Cabdru again because Cabdru was never realistic in the first place: a fact that is constantly pointed out by numerous people who have glimpses into Nepenthe's mind and methods.

Many, many classes do things that anti-paladins can, even in PK, far better than the AP. But the players who play them seem to get either into a mindset of rolling the dice to land the sleep so they can vault, a tactic that can either have an abysmally low or ridiculously high success rate based on the sheer amount of attempts you actually get, which again are factored based on how many enemies there are, what kind of enemies there are, and whether they have constant access to external aid.

Of course that's just one way to play them, the other is to play them as giant or duergar races without acknowledging that in most cases a warrior of the equivalent race will kill most foes quicker, faster, cleaner and have fewer long-term repercussions for a loss (near-permanent loss of HP + hit + dam)

There seems to be this erroneous thought process behind the class that since it has access to a/b/s it can take on and seal kills on tougher foes, a thought process that frequently doesn't bear out in the long-term. The more powerful your weapon gets and the more damage you do past a certain threshold, the more people your opponents will bring when they hunt you, the more they will put aside their roleplay to kill you (ragers getting heals from Fortress and such) and the harder you will be pasted when and after you lose that weapon on a consistent basis.

Meanwhile warriors, conjurers and shapeshifters for example all start off with a higher baseline for power, with warriors excelling in kill-sealing ability, shapeshifters excelling in offense plus either mobility, utility or defense, and conjurers excelling in sheer power + hunting ability above even that of airforms that rarely gets put to proper use because doing so involves burning through alot of CON no matter how smart you are.

That latter aspect may sound like it's very similar to AP's to some folks but it's not at all. Most AP's have no incentive to age-die and have delusions of grandeur that their unholy weapon will, within a reasonable timeframe, get more powerful than a properly geared warrior or orc, which doesn't seem to be the case. Anyone on the receiving end of Dakazhul and Gzurweeg (putting aside deathblow which is a special case all it's own and savage feeding which for all intents and purposes is deathblow with a more restrictive ruleset) can tell that Dakazhul can probably get the relevant pieces of gear to put out the same damage with only a minor cost in tactical options and a massive hit to the amount of allies he can get.

Yet people like to play AP's more.

So I guess to sum up after my thoughts as an observer of this class and trying to toy around with a mid-level arial AP at one point who obscenely frequently failed the sleep spell is why are players so enthusiastic to put themselves through this, especially heavy PK body-count minded players who don't see the value in a hiding class that could get them as much or more kills? This doesn't seem to be exclusive to a particular level of skill either.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

I'm probably one of those guys who would be considered a serial AP player. I've only had one I would consider to be truly successful chargewise, and much of that came out of leeching several hundred charges off of a rival AP who had put the hard work in.

That, for me, was kind of like winning the lottery. Even though I didn't earn the strength, I managed to cause a lot of havoc once I had it. And damn, that was fun.

Part of me keeps rolling up APs and hoping for the same kind of windfall, since I am sure never going to rack up massive charges or controls by grinding it out. I take too many chances and fight foes when I'm at a disadvantage, so my weapons rarely go over 10-20 charges before somebody destroys it. And they ALWAYS destroy it. But there's still a rush whenever I do get a charge, especially against somebody who has destroyed my weapon before.

So, lump in that natural human addiction to gambling with that desire to make up for the loss of power... there's greater highs and lows than any other class, I think.

There is no cap...if you're good at picking your battles, and fight decently tough foes, you can potentially gain infinite power. It's like the lottery, with a bit of skill involved.

The flip side, is it can disappear far quicker than you got it.

Personally I enjoy the class, and have had some decent sized weapons, but I know my playstyle and could never have one of the uber-weapons. I take to many chances

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Wands alone make an ap very strong.

I like aps because there isn't a single class they don't have the tools to handle.

Only druids can claim the same, imho.

Answer: Gzurweeg.

While you're right that there's not going to be another Cabdru, just because of some of the gear that's no longer available, you could easily get someone sufficiently beastly that they're not likely to die any time soon and in the mean time will kill hordes of people.

But I've seen how close he's come to losing that weapon to some spectacularly stupid things already and he's probably had several times more of those occasions than any of us have ever seen.

So how does he put up with the mental strain of keeping that kind of power?

Besides half the MUD is assuming he perma'd or selectively logged in with Ahtieli to get that weapon anyway so I was trying to avoid discussing him in particular.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

>So how does he put up with the mental strain of keeping that
>kind of power?

Honestly, I think that's part of the draw.

I mean, look at it this way: I've heard a lot of people here say they prefer PvP in a game like CF to a game like WoW because you have real stakes. There's adrenaline because you could really lose something that matters, at least a little.

In a lot of ways playing an A-P is just taking that up a notch or five. If you're a person who enjoys the risk factor of PK, doesn't risking a lot more make that even more interesting?

(I enjoy this while I play an A-P, but like you say, it can be exhausting and there's a reason I don't ever roll two of them back to back.)

>I mean, look at it this way: I've heard a lot of people here
>say they prefer PvP in a game like CF to a game like WoW
>because you have real stakes. There's adrenaline because you
>could really lose something that matters, at least a little.
>
>In a lot of ways playing an A-P is just taking that up a notch
>or five. If you're a person who enjoys the risk factor of PK,
>doesn't risking a lot more make that even more interesting?
>
> I enjoy this while I play an A-P, but like you say, it can be
>exhausting and there's a reason I don't ever roll two of them
>back to back.)


This exactly is the answer I was looking for. You enjoy it but you can't possibly enjoy it forever.

That makes more sense.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

To be clear, I don't think that's what draws everyone to play an A-P, and I don't think it's all of the appeal of the class, but it's maybe something you were missing.

Some other things I like about playing an A-P, that you can disagree with or not as you choose:

- I feel like I have the offensive tools to beat just about anyone. There are less fights that I feel that I just can't reasonably win with an A-P than with almost anything else. Granted, I think some of the A-P skillset (such as Worldbind, as seen upthread) is a lot better than you do.

- The mechanics of the class, once UB come out, encourage me to play in a way that's sportsmanlike. I think you can make something of an opposite argument here, but I'm choosing to see the good in it. It's not to my advantage as an A-P to spam-kill the same guy, or to pick on weak enemies, or to avoid strong ones. Experientially, if someone keeps whipping me down, they're almost always worth multiple charges. There's an incentive for me to not gang in that it means other people won't steal my kills.

- It's got a lot of versatility. I mean, when I see the way some people play a warrior with Enigma, it isn't all that different than the way I've played some of my A-Ps, that "I'm going to bash people down, and if that goes south, I can recall from combat" style. But, instead of that being most of my bag, that's just one of my tricks. I can beat other people with maledictions, others with damage spells, others by playing for sleep, and so on. Even the extremes of A-P races are more versatile than you might think.

- It's got one of the best kill-sealing setups for a magey character, if playing one appeals to you.

- Also post-UB: If I kill someone, I probably get something good for it, even if I can't or don't take any of their gear.

I'm sure there's a lot more. I've been distracted/interrupted a couple times in the process of writing this, so if it's a little disjointed I apologize.

And you will have a higher chance of being PKd by one than you will PKing one. There are also few things more disheartening than going the distance against a conservative AP, losing, and giving him a handful of charges - knowing that you just made him that much more powerful. Although given the characters I know you've played and their PK records, you've probably never experienced that.

Non-conservatively played APs are also very competitive with warriors when they have access to ABS. I think it might be an even matchup assuming the same skill level.

And then there's the non-conservative, non-access to ABS APs, which are probably going to be meat to warriors of the same skill level - or at least die more than they win.

Seriously, though. Have you ever played a decent AP? A decent warrior? Your post is filled with your own experiences, which are limited by your skill level. How about you make an Orc that beats up a bunch of APs and amasses 100 PKs before saying Orcs are more powerful? How about doing that with a warrior? Or with anything, really.

>And you will have a higher chance of being PKd by one than
>you will PKing one. There are also few things more
>disheartening than going the distance against a conservative
>AP, losing, and giving him a handful of charges - knowing that
>you just made him that much more powerful. Although given the
>characters I know you've played and their PK records, you've
>probably never experienced that.
>

I have given less than 10 AP charges to AP's over the last five years, and have died to that class maybe five times.

You can draw whatever conclusions from that you want including your veiled 'you suck'.

>Non-conservatively played APs are also very competitive with
>warriors when they have access to ABS. I think it might be an
>even matchup assuming the same skill level.

That's all fine and dandy, I wasn't comparing overall powerlevel. I was asking why put yourself through the tedium and balance the loss of everything you've done up to a certain point on dying or getting disarmed once.

How do you justify the mindset that the class appears fun to you? That's what I'm asking, not 'do they suck?'

>
>And then there's the non-conservative, non-access to ABS APs,
>which are probably going to be meat to warriors of the same
>skill level - or at least die more than they win.

We agree here.

>
>Seriously, though. Have you ever played a decent AP? A
>decent warrior? Your post is filled with your own
>experiences, which are limited by your skill level. How about
>you make an Orc that beats up a bunch of APs and amasses 100
>PKs before saying Orcs are more powerful? How about doing
>that with a warrior? Or with anything, really.

Orcs and warriors have as high or higher minimum baseline power level (the ability to dust off run off and go kill someone with basic regear) than your average anti-paladin, at least in terms of kill counts. Granted the underestimated recently full looted AP is more likely to kill a skilled player whether by cleave, sleep or bash, but the former two are going to probably have higher kill counts a few hours after a death overall.

Given the similar power levels but the restrictions and caveats AP's have, why even take the risk?

One player said to me that it's the ability to build a character that can take on a group of five people and win, and to get to that point is exhilirating.

I can understand that feeling. I can also posit that the right rager berserker build can get to that point, Firhindil (stsf dagger/spear exotic elf rager) was certainly capable of it. Many paladins played by the players who have earned three virtues are also capable of it, though that is probably dependent on the virtues and whether you think the paladin in question earned it with his skill or by some imm who was cracked enough to give it to him.

You can probably do so easily by learning the conjurer class in and out with a/b/s on hand and while you'll seal fewer kills you can probably dish out more damage faster pre-hero in the general case than the AP, with unique abilities to kill conservative people that AP's don't get. (familiars, nightgaunts, scrying, and any number of alignment based tricks with different servitors)

You could, with ridiculously stupid opponents, do that with a bard.

Other classes excel at not ending up in that situation in the first place.

However it takes longer and more effort to get to this point with an AP than any of the others listed above. So again what fuels the mindset that this becomes pleasurable? CF is extremely frustrating but the AP class probably has to take the cake on things that cause blood vessels to burst outside of differing opinions on cabal dynamics, say for instance you being utterly and wholly clueless as to how and why the empire sects should oppose each other and in what ways, but I'll attribute that cluelessness to the same ignorance you attribute the Fortlander phenomenon that even a preschooler can see objectively. As long as we're taking veiled pot shots and trying to question credibility before giving a non-credibility related answer.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

As long as we're taking veiled pot shots
>and trying to question credibility before giving a
>non-credibility related answer.

Just so we're clear, he's got a lot more credibility than you do.

That's not a knock on you. Maybe your problem is mostly a poor character attention span; I can't diss that because I have the same problem. But, over the years, dude has produced a lot more great, bad-ass, and memorable characters than you have.

So... yeah. He has the credibility.

Not for playing ####ty chars or not being credible.

He's pretty much harping on that particular topic on both boards as if I'm sitting there telling him how to play his chars. I'm not.

By making the observation you did, you're getting involved in what you *know* is mere ####waving on his part. Considering the threads you've locked I think you know better.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

There are things you know about why an A-P is cool after you'd played one for 200 hours (or whatever) or racked up 100 kills (or whatever) that you don't learn on a shorter lived character. For example, if you were playing A-P at hero let's say 6 months ago you may have never had to fight a ranger. Today you probably would, but there are equally kinds of characters that were more in vogue 6 months ago that aren't as much now. The more of these things you have to live through with one character, the more you're forced to stretch what the character can do and learn to deal with different situations.

It's a little valid to say, if you played one and stuck with it long enough, you might have a different opinion.

>say for instance you
>being utterly and wholly clueless as to how and why the empire
>sects should oppose each other and in what ways, but I'll
>attribute that cluelessness to the same ignorance you
>attribute the Fortlander phenomenon that even a preschooler
>can see objectively.


Quick note: Does anyone else find it interesting/ironic/amusing that one of the people who complained most about "fortlander," Dervish, exhibited the most "fortlanderish" behavior when he rolled up a fortress character (Dargin)?

As for the rest of your comments, I wasn't ####waving, it was more a matter of:

1. Your posts remind me of Josiah's. Only less coherent and laced with more profanity.

2. It was clear from reading your post that you hadn't invested a decent amount of time into successfully playing an orc, warrior, or AP. Because saying that Orcs and Warriors have as much as or more overall baseline power than an AP, particularly an AP like Gzurweeg, is pretty ridiculous. So I wanted to correct that along with a couple other pieces of misinformation.

3. I'm often tempted not to respond to your posts, but then I think "Well, Damn, what if some newbie is reading this crap and thinks Scrimbul knows what he is talking about - shouldn't I try to temper what Scrimbul wrote to make it less misleading?" It's basically the same thought process I go through with Josiah posts.

4. I think if you played a character/class for a large amount of time and got involved in a large amount of PKs under a variety of different circumstances - and won them - you would probably make less Josiah-like posts because you'd see more of the pros, cons, and intangibles involved in playing CF. IMO.

Otherwise, it's good to know Daevryn has my back

>Quick note: Does anyone else find it
>interesting/ironic/amusing that one of the people who
>complained most about "fortlander," Dervish, exhibited the
>most "fortlanderish" behavior when he rolled up a fortress
>character (Dargin)?

I'll take this opportunity to encourage the reading of that PBF.

But, yeah, I don't think anyone else in Fort in recent memory earned the dubious honor of the "Are you sure you don't want to be an Outlander instead?" talk.

I can point out quite a bit of Fortress who made same(if not more) number of fortlander gangs but instead of that talk they got different perks from imms.

Probably, although from your perspective you have no idea what things might or might not make those situations different.

Have I ever mentioned that I liked your character until you started posting to the forums?

>Probably, although from your perspective you have no idea
>what things might or might not make those situations
>different.

Okey, as fort char I did quite a bit fortlander gangs and got perks from imms. Does it sound any better?

>Have I ever mentioned that I liked your character until
>you started posting to the forums?

We all aren't perfect. But there are no borders for love

do not talk about things you nothing do not know about. It only make you look fool.

I can prove what I've wrote.

Was a former Captain of the Brigade, if I recall.

The elf dagger spec. Also liked getting battle along for the ride.

Because he often jumped into fights that didn't involve him solely because he was in the area.

He was also played by an Imm.

n/t

Always shoot first and then call whatever you hit the target.

asf

I think he's talking about Ajirkhan / Ilvakihj.

Iltanthal was the imm leader (Twist).

nt

No such thing as fortlander.

Perhaps its the matter of certain IMM's liking and disliking rather than me grouped with outlanders too much?

Or it could have something to do with you tending to take Outlanders' side over Fort people's side in disputes, and/or preferentially group with Outlander over Fort a lot of the time.

Which, say what you will, is not something that's typical in a Fort character, even ones that will opportunistically jump in on an Outlander/Empire fight or what have you.

Well, I just tried to explain what outlanders were doing, I dont think its worth to be called "took their side".
Also that was only once and I dont think one issue is enough to call it "tending"

And again, I misunderstood the situation (was quite busy and did not read cb too attentively probably), when I got it, I changed my mind.

About the grouping, Fortress member declined to raid. Outlanders called me to raid. Why should not I?

There's a log of you telling your own cabalmate not to join a raid with you because you were raiding with Loz. Given that you had no qualms ganging, I can only assume that that is because you know Loz might attack him.

I called him before. He said he wont come. So you are wrong.
Then he came and screwed the things letting Satoshi escape.

nt

I am fine with ganks, any cabal combinations, super powerchars like Ahtieli so I dont complain and cry about them. Ever, except if I am joking.

There's an A-P running around with an over 200 charge weapon right now.

You're telling me an orc can get gear to compete with over +100 dam and over +1000 hp (plus a full set of gear?) I just don't see it.

Beyond that you're making a number of assumptions that I either don't think bear out or know don't bear out.

Because it will happen. If it doesn't, he probably either isn't logging any hours, has a perma, or someone is missing some very good opportunities to screw him over whether an enemy of his or someone very close to him.

I'm saying that by playing an AP more than any other class other than conjurer you are putting a very big factor into the hands of random chance that you cannot have any control over: When you lose that weapon and how.

If people were playing solely to get to controls they'd have more fun but that's not how typically people tend to chat on the forums to have it bear out.

>>No one is realistically going to make Cabdru again because Cabdru was >>never realistic in the first place: a fact that is constantly pointed >>out by numerous people who have glimpses into Nepenthe's mind and >>methods.

I think we had "stronger" (more charges) ap than Cabdru.. Ravon for example, alas he was not much "better" in my opinion due abuse of bugs and heavy use of ooc.

However I bet we will have better APs than Cabdru even though Nep "fixed"/removed quite a bit things which makes Ap somewhat weaker and killable.

The chances of this happening within any reasonable timeframe without a permagroup before your opponents start catching on and spamkilling you is extremely low.

You're essentially playing the class because you're taking one long dice-roll and trying to stack the odds in your favor. Where exactly is the appeal in that once you realize worldbind is a better way to get yourself killed than actually use it on communers which generally average higher INT than yours, and the people that can't/don't want to counter bloodlust of the twelve fiends start saying 'Screw fun play let's gang this bitch'.

At least making a lich you don't lose it once you die, though changes to the game as a whole have made them a bit more vulnerable than they were, particularly the presence of landslide, surrounding the sunrise and a few paladin virtues. I would argue the chances of you accomplishing the Becoming even with zero area knowledge are higher than any experienced player enjoying it when start people forming perma pairs over AIM to coordinate perfectly timed permalag to kill you with little you can do to counter it but pray you can two-round them, in addition to mounting out of PK assistance anytime you're in the area and the opponent happens to not feeling quaffing a recall.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

except part I made comment on.

>Where exactly is the appeal in that once you realize worldbind
>is a better way to get yourself killed than actually use it on
>communers which generally average higher INT than yours,

I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. . . meaning it probably doesn't.

>At least making a lich you don't lose it once you die, though
>changes to the game as a whole have made them a bit more
>vulnerable than they were, particularly the presence of
>landslide, surrounding the sunrise and a few paladin virtues.

You're seeing what you want to see there. It's a lot more complicated than that. The last ten years (or five, or whatever period you pick) have brought some good things for fighting liches, and they've also brought some good things for liches not wanting to die. The list of both is really, really long.