You obviously chose not to show my questions to your announcement (but revealed others).

Why did you (or other unnamed imms) elect to change the 8yr odd status quo regarding bash and trip ?

Since i assume that it's because you don't like your lowbie mages dying will you then reduce the effectiveness of high level mages such as invokers to ensure my high level warriors don't die as easily?
In a nepenthe like way i'll ask, what was wrong with invis as a solution?

Similarly do you plan to tweak the bonuses from detect hidden/invis and sneak as these obviously effect players at lower rank too?

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I've logged on, I've noticed in my PK range when I was in the mid 30's that I would have 10 other warriors and myself in my range, now I'm not saying this is always a case, but at most times I notice that warrior is by far the most common class on. Maybe this is just the times I log on... And yes I can see everything but camo.

Razoul retired Ear-Biter of Tar Valon.

>In a nepenthe like way i'll ask, what was wrong with invis as
>a solution?

There's really nothing me-like about that question. Sorry.

If I'm playing a lowbie warrior who doesn't want to join Battle, I'm running around with detect invis 100% of the time that matters as soon as I hit PK range. Economy changes or no economy changes, I haven't been caught without it on such a character at a time that mattered since the mid-90's.

So to answer your question: What's wrong with invis as a solution is that it only offers any defense at all vs.

A) Warriors who want to join Battle and
B) Warriors who weren't really very good.

Selling invis as the total bash solution is like trying to sell a kevlar vest that stops all bullets except for the ones that wil actually kill you if they make it through.

>
>>In a nepenthe like way i'll ask, what was wrong with invis
>as
>>a solution?
>
>There's really nothing me-like about that question. Sorry.

Well, there was. You always made cryptic allusions to how to avoid wall of thorns when it just boiled down to "avoid the fight". Invis does the same thing.

The Nepentheness of it was "if you don't like it, don't fight"

It was Nepenthe-like in that your answers usually employ a sneaky way of just stating the obvious. In this case, it was: Don't like warriors bashing? Don't let them see you.

Yeah, but the difference is, my questions aren't as dumb.

Sorry, EG, but they aren't. Invis is a useful tool in a lowbie mage's arsenal, but panacea it simply isn't.

Well, there was. You always made cryptic allusions to how to avoid wall of thorns when it just boiled down to "avoid the fight". Invis does the same thing.

Except Invis doesn't avoid the fight often enough, which invalidates whatever you were trying to establish:

1) Detect Invis is a common ability, even if the class doesn't grant it. How do you propose a low level mage consistently deals with a bashing AP? If a warrior enters your area, would you assume they can't see you? I wouldn't.
2) Size preps don't help much. While you can alter your size by one category with a prep.... so can an equally prepared warrior. We're discussing symmetric fights here- you can't assume you have preps handy and they don't. (As a mage you do have more prep options overall, but that's a small piece of the puzzle.)
3) While you only have the easily-foiled Invis to avoid a fight, a lot of the people with Trip are hidden, and there isn't much you can do about a smart hider that doesn't bore you to death or turn you into ranger food. Even with Invis in your repertoire, you have the short end of the concealment stick.
4) Predator-prey isn't very fun for the prey. Even if Invis did offer a significant edge in evasion, if the mage's optimal strategy is "disappear, then run far away", that's not nearly as interesting as a scenario where the mage has the option of a fair fight.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>
>>In a nepenthe like way i'll ask, what was wrong with invis
>as
>>a solution?
>
>There's really nothing me-like about that question. Sorry.
>
>If I'm playing a lowbie warrior who doesn't want to join
>Battle, I'm running around with detect invis 100% of the time
>that matters as soon as I hit PK range. Economy changes or no
>economy changes, I haven't been caught without it on such a
>character at a time that mattered since the mid-90's.

So, why can't mages use fly, enlarge/reduce preps? Why on earth are magi suddenly uncapable of carrying preps but mages can.

Warriors can prep to find mages but mages are disabled from prepping to avoid bash/trip?

When a mage preps, it just stops him getting lagged. The warrior more often than not will still outdamage him or escape.

When a mage gets bashed, that's it. Game over. (talking lowbies here.)

Seriously, when people want a break from a char, they play a lowbie basher and bash to rack up kills. When was the last time someone suggested playing a mage, getting cone of cold wands, and racking up kills? When was the last time someone did it?

>When a mage preps, it just stops him getting lagged. The
>warrior more often than not will still outdamage him or
>escape.
>
>When a mage gets bashed, that's it. Game over. (talking
>lowbies here.)
>
>Seriously, when people want a break from a char, they play a
>lowbie basher and bash to rack up kills. When was the last
>time someone suggested playing a mage, getting cone of cold
>wands, and racking up kills? When was the last time someone
>did it?

Lowbie warrior damage output has been reduced with the widespread limiting of weapons.

When people want a break from a char, they -claim- they play a lowbie basher. How many do? I don't see that many uber bash happy types in the lowbie ranges and if they do, it's more often than not physical class vs physical class.

People regularly suggest playing a lowbie invoker and running around ***DEMOLISHING*** people. (having said that, since valg's changes to touches i don't expect many invokers will have that many spells before rank 25 these days)

>>
Lowbie warrior damage output has been reduced with the widespread limiting of weapons.
>>

There are more weapons available now then ever before. I'm sorry if you're imagination doesn't extend beyond forge hammers and jeweled broadswords but you are sorely wrong when you say limitting them has reduced warrior damage.

When people want a break from a char, they -claim- they play a lowbie basher. How many do? I don't see that many uber bash happy types in the lowbie ranges and if they do, it's more often than not physical class vs physical class.

You couldn't be more wrong. You're off on your own island of wrong. Other wrong looks at that post and wonders what MUD you play on, because it isn't this one.

I hope you're just trolling and trying to pick fights, because otherwise I'm at a complete loss for how you could come to anything resembling these sorts of conclusions after being here forever and a day.

Physical classes dominate the low end of the PK scale. I could throw some numbers around, but it shouldn't be necessary to anyone that has played the game for a while. Invokers are relative lunchmeat there. Any player who can land kills with an invoker really knows what the heck they're doing, and could land five times as many kills with a physically oriented class.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

"Other wrong looks at that post and wonders what MUD
>you play on, because it isn't this one."

That's ####ing hysterical. I'm going to have to remember that one.

I'll give you proper citation though Valg, fear not.

I'm still chuckling over that as I type. Nice one.

I just want to give you my tumbs up for this change. Good work!

I am not sure if the victim or the attackers level is taken into account, but it would be really nice if the victims level would be the one dessiding the efficiency of lagging moves.

And for the original poster, a ranger at 20th rank can get hold of weapons and gear through normal play without hero loot that can ANNIHILATE on ambush and do steady MUTILATES on normal combat... And any wand that level I know of atleast does not stack damage for instakill... A transmuter that level is one ambush or two to tree combat rounds to kill.

When it comes to preps, some preps which are reachable for a warrior is definitely not reachable for most mages. I think you know that a mage at low rank cant really kill much or walk to many places without stacking mobdeaths.

I love the change, and keep up the balancing work

Now mages have a chance to get away

Is this something you've thought was broken for 8 years and are now fixing? A "better late than never" change?

Is cf the same as it was 8 years ago?

I thought the low-rank PK scene was radically imbalanced when I started playing CF. I think everyone did- witness the player recommendations to newbies as far as what class they should play and why.

As Nightgaunt points out, of course, the game has changed a lot since then, and while we've made some nice strides in making the lower ranks a little more balanced (distention, moving some abilities to higher levels, giving muters/shifters more weapons earlier, upping the number of low level wands/staves/scrolls, etc.), it's still very much a physically oriented class's game at those levels. I'm not sure anyone can say otherwise with a straight face. Yes, a very skilled player can (and has) landed some kills with a mage in those ranks, but those same very skilled players run up ridiculous body counts if they play an assassin, warrior, or AP.

So we've been tweaking things slowly. None of the changes discussed, including this one, are particularly radical. But a collection of incremental changes is the best way to tweak a complex system like CF if you want to avoid sharp fluctuations in gameplay.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Have you played a warrior that has experimented with bash/trip pre 25 after the changes?

Do you really think Valg or any other imm have the problem of repetedly dying pre 25 as a mage.

Do you actually think mages get all the love, warriors are one of the most diversed classes, and gotten tons of loving. Thief revamp, rangers got more skills..

Are mages so extremely buff at hero these days, it is fighters who seem to kill most.

I see it has a balance to lessen the chance of insta-death that it is if someone lands a bash on a mage pre 25 usually.

Why even bother about this change?

Do you actually think mages get all the love, warriors are one of the most diversed classes, and gotten tons of loving. Thief revamp, rangers got more skills..

I agree this claim is pretty boggling. Even on the "Evil Genius Scale of The Sky Is Falling!", accusing me of some form of anti-warrior agenda is pretty silly in light of other recent changes we've made like Legacies, Enhanced Reactions, the level 40+ hit-point boosts, etc.

Wait.

Notice a pattern?

High-level warriors have been getting lots of new toys? Low-level warriors are getting cut back a bit?

Doesn't this seem fair, based on how things were a couple years ago?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>I agree this claim is pretty boggling. Even on the "Evil
>Genius Scale of The Sky Is Falling!", accusing me of some form
>of anti-warrior agenda is pretty silly in light of other
>recent changes we've made like Legacies, Enhanced
>Reactions, the level 40+ hit-point boosts, etc.

Not to mention:

* Shifters' effectiveness reduced by maledictions.
* Shifters' take damage from shifting when maledicted.
* Lag added to revert.
* Lag added to flyto.
* Sleep spell less effective when used in quick succession.
* Barrier takes up an elemental shield spot for invokers.
* Avalanche toned down.
* Removal of the major mage cabal for goodies (Warlock).
* Removal of old-school locate object for Necros/Invokers.
* A/B/S now more scarce than before the wand change.

>I agree this claim is pretty boggling. Even on the "Evil
>Genius Scale of The Sky Is Falling!", accusing me of some form
>of anti-warrior agenda is pretty silly in light of other
>recent changes we've made like Legacies, Enhanced
>Reactions, the level 40+ hit-point boosts, etc.

If you take the high road of removing any and all personal comments from the character board i fully suggest you follow your own policy.

Hitherto known as the "Valguarnera Scale of self-####ing-importance"

>Do you really think Valg or any other imm have the problem of
>repetedly dying pre 25 as a mage.

Well, someone otherwise does. If no one is dying like flies to bash then obviously nothing needs changed. Or do you think "imm=hot dog of pk" and are therefore far far above mere mortals skillwise?

>Do you actually think mages get all the love, warriors are one
>of the most diversed classes, and gotten tons of loving. Thief
>revamp, rangers got more skills..

No, but i believe people shouldn't #### with things for ####s and giggles.

>I see it has a balance to lessen the chance of insta-death
>that it is if someone lands a bash on a mage pre 25 usually.

I guess this change is aimed at you then, never realised mages were that incompetant before. Economy changes have utterly reduced the numbers of detect invis using warriors at low ranks. (lowbie thieves are now just a joke)

>Why even bother about this change?

Because i don't only concern myself with those changes that just affect me,me,me?

And trip, at lower level.

If you landed a single bash on a mage with a bash orientated (as in large or carrying much weight) dual wielding char on a lowbie mage, he usually died before coming out of lag.

Even trip is deadly considering you need only catch them with one command in in order to lag them for four rounds (which they won't survive).

Same thing applies to throw, although throw doesn't seem to have as high a success rate as bash and trip. Maybe that's just my impression though.

In summary, at low level, magi can't protect against bash unless they see you coming, they have poor hp and no defense to speak of.

In attack, a mage can still be a threat, but since they can't lag the warrior classes well, the warrior classes should be able to run off. The (lowbie) mage class that has just been bashed will have less than a 50% chance of survival, in my experience.

While I fully agree with this:

If you landed a single bash on a mage with a bash orientated (as in large or carrying much weight) dual wielding char on a lowbie mage, he usually died before coming out of lag.

, and I'm aware of how easily available flight is if you aren't a Rager applicant, this is a very important difference:

In summary, at low level, magi can't protect against bash unless they see you coming,

One thing that keeps me somewhat safe if I play a low-level mage is that I can almost always see Bash coming if I'm on my toes enough. (And it still means that I'm running like hell unless I think they're an easy mark for some reason.) One scary thing about Trip is that it sometimes comes with its friend Hide. And as you mention:

Even trip is deadly considering you need only catch them with one command in in order to lag them for four rounds (which they won't survive).

Any competent/patient thief or assassin can set up that four-round opportunity. It gets harder if the mage picks the right terrain, but then they are usually ranger food, or very restricted in where they can go. You need a pretty sweet +hp set or a lot of luck to go four rounds as an unprepped mage against a character with decent fighting skills. And even if you do, the extent of your PK interaction for that conflict is to run like hell. We've toned down teen-ranked assassins a few times, but they still eat magi for lunch with this.

Can a properly prepped mage stand toe-to-toe? Maybe. Can you always be prepped? Not even close.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I feel better about this change having played a lowbie fire giant anti-paladin. I got some decent loots and had like a 35 damroll in the upper teens. It was just too easy to kill mages. All I had to do was spam bash. Lame.

What I'd like to see is you defending why this change bothers you so much. Really. Why should you care? Is it that big of a deal that you can no longer trip/bash people to death sub-25?

>I feel better about this change having played a lowbie fire
>giant anti-paladin. I got some decent loots and had like a 35
>damroll in the upper teens. It was just too easy to kill
>mages. All I had to do was spam bash. Lame.
>
>What I'd like to see is you defending why this change bothers
>you so much. Really. Why should you care? Is it that big of
>a deal that you can no longer trip/bash people to death
>sub-25?


Because it's a change to mollycoddle mages in the ranks where they ARE supposed to be weaker and further enhance the chances of them making it to the higher ranks where they are much stronger.

I'm wondering why mages are getting all the joy? I'm not in the slightest suggesting that Valg doesn't play warriors, ever.

At those ranks mages are weak to a much larger degree than are warriors at the hero ranks. Like I said- "walk up to mage, hit bash once or twice, get all corpse" is not my idea of scintillating gameplay. Besides, they're weak enough at thos ranks that a watered down trip or bash is still probably enough to seal the kill. It doesn't take much lag to kill someone when you can two-round them.

Also- this change doesn't just benefit mages. Your warrior is also now harder to kill by being bashed/tripped to death.

By the way, your implication that Valguarnera made the change purely to benefit his own characters is pretty ludicrous.

>By the way, your implication that Valguarnera made the change
>purely to benefit his own characters is pretty ludicrous.

I said i wasn't implying that.

Is how has this change so radically altered your playing experience that it merits bringing up?

Valg asked on his forum what people thought of class imbalances at various levels. Pretty universally everyone said that imbalanced classes are bad, and they'd be more in favor of class power being equivalent at all levels. Based on that input, a change was made to start things going in that direction.

So, if you do feel so strongly that this change is a bad one, why didn't you pipe up when asked that you were in favor of a system where some classes (warriors) are really strong at low levels while other classes (mages) were really weak at low levels, but strong at higher levels?

Yup. I don't even think there's much room for debate, although I did try to frame it as such for the initial polling. Of the two extremes:

1) Warriors always win at rank 20. Magi always win at rank 50.
2) Rank 20 is an even fight. Rank 50 is an even fight.

, it's obviously a much more interesting game for everyone in case #2. Well, not everyone- some players liked rolling up endless level 15 Bash specs and multi-killing the newbies, but I don't particularly give a crap about their opinion.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Yup. I don't even think there's much room for debate,
>although I did try to frame it as such for the initial
>polling. Of the two extremes:
>
>1) Warriors always win at rank 20. Magi always win at rank
>50.
>2) Rank 20 is an even fight. Rank 50 is an even fight.
>
>, it's obviously a much more interesting game for everyone in
>case #2. Well, not everyone- some players liked rolling up
>endless level 15 Bash specs and multi-killing the
>newbies, but I don't particularly give a crap about their
>opinion.
>
>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

#2 is the preferred option, i'm amused that you're attempting to imply that #1 was the way things were because it sounds like that's your rationalisation for the change. Flawed rationalisation.

>#2 is the preferred option

>Valg asked on his forum what people thought of class
>imbalances at various levels. Pretty universally everyone
>said that imbalanced classes are bad, and they'd be more in
>favor of class power being equivalent at all levels. Based on
>that input, a change was made to start things going in that
>direction.
>
>So, if you do feel so strongly that this change is a bad one,
>why didn't you pipe up when asked that you were in favor of a
>system where some classes (warriors) are really strong at low
>levels while other classes (mages) were really weak at low
>levels, but strong at higher levels?


Care to point me towards this post that you claim i've had no input towards?

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=35&topic_id=11&mesg_id=11&page=

Is the ideal of game balance that warriors rape magi at low ranks and then magi rape warriors at high rank?

Seems to me that toning up warriors (and toning down magi) at high rank, whilst toning down warriors at low rank makes perfect sense. It is better to have balance at all ranks than two ranges where one side or the other is overpowered relative to the other.

Have you played a character at those ranks? Any guess as to the magnitude of the change in question? Or can I safely file this under "guesswork"?

Why did you (or other unnamed imms) elect to change the 8yr odd status quo regarding bash and trip ?

There was/is a fairly clear imbalance at those ranks. This change is a step towards resolving that.

Since i assume that it's because you don't like your lowbie mages dying will you then reduce the effectiveness of high level mages such as invokers to ensure my high level warriors don't die as easily?

Apples. Oranges.

I think the game is well-balanced overall, but there are always small issues to work on. Working on one doesn't mean we're going to stop working on anything else.

Also, hero warriors tend to be high-death, high-kill. I'm not certain they're weak at all these days.

In a nepenthe like way i'll ask, what was wrong with invis as a solution?

Nepenthe-like? Uhh....

Detect Invis remains a reasonably common ability. If we lower its availability and don't touch anything else, then there is a reduction in PK action in those ranks- magi avoid warriors to avoid dying instantly, warriors can't find magi.

Similarly do you plan to tweak the bonuses from detect hidden/invis and sneak as these obviously effect players at lower rank too?

No.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Have you played a character at those ranks? Any guess as to
>the magnitude of the change in question? Or can I safely file
>this under "guesswork"?

No, it quite clearly falls in - you have announced a change. If this change does nothing it would not have taken place.

>Why did you (or other unnamed imms) elect to change the 8yr
>odd status quo regarding bash and trip ?
>
>There was/is a fairly clear imbalance at those ranks. This
>change is a step towards resolving that.

Was there? People appear to have survived/prospered through it for the past years.

>Since i assume that it's because you don't like your lowbie
>mages dying will you then reduce the effectiveness of high
>level mages such as invokers to ensure my high level warriors
>don't die as easily?
>
>Apples. Oranges.

? I don't follow. You made a change to physical types because bash/trip is clearly imbalanced at lower ranks but a high level invoker than can grease/web/quicksand/geyser (and curse with items) people to death in very short notice while only taking injures, isn't?

You don't actually say -why- bash/trip is imbalanced.

>I think the game is well-balanced overall, but there are
>always small issues to work on. Working on one doesn't mean
>we're going to stop working on anything else.

>Also, hero warriors tend to be high-death, high-kill. I'm not
>certain they're weak at all these days.



>In a nepenthe like way i'll ask, what was wrong with invis
>as a solution?
>
>Nepenthe-like? Uhh....

Ok, then perhaps i was just stating the obvious. Trip/bash isn't overpowered when you don't even need to fight and there's -easily- obtained preps to help.

>Detect Invis remains a reasonably common ability. If
>we lower its availability and don't touch anything else, then
>there is a reduction in PK action in those ranks- magi avoid
>warriors to avoid dying instantly, warriors can't find magi.

?Magi die instantly? Since when?

>Similarly do you plan to tweak the bonuses from detect
>hidden/invis and sneak as these obviously effect players at
>lower rank too?
>
>No.

>Have you played a character at those ranks? Any guess as to
>the magnitude of the change in question? Or can I safely file
>this under "guesswork"?

No

Thank you, drive through.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

If you make a list of the 25 current characters with the most kills to their name, guess what class is in the lead, with 12 members? (One at level 48, the rest at hero.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>If you make a list of the 25 current characters with the most
>kills to their name, guess what class is in the lead, with 12
>members? (One at level 48, the rest at hero.)
>
>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

If you make a list of the 25 current characters with the least deaths to their name, guess what class is in the lead? Yep, trip/bash is broken.