Who's Online
0 registered and 27 anonymous users online.
Newest Members
Mog, GreenGems, Minzuki, evaker, juffsion
83 Registered Users
Top Posters
608
Cerberus
368
Charon
211
MacTORG
204
Kim
164
carmy
148
Muod
106
Shadowraith
90
Minstrel
88
sabu
49
Rancid
Recent Topics
Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1719 - 04/08/08 09:23 AM Re: Removals [Re: Charon]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
Guild balance issues are still in the distant future, but it's wonderful having these conversations start early. I'm against reinstatement of instant-removal spells of any kind, and especially against the sorts that destroy pets, armour, weapons, and anything players spend many real hours making.

I think of it this way, but maybe you disagree - if you spend 3 hours to make a tinkered breastplate with full runes, and an elementalist comes along with a "rust" spell to destroy it, that spell should take 3 hours minimum to cause its destruction. Since there is no viable way to make a destructive spell that is both useful and takes 3 hours to complete (silent distance spells not withstanding) the concept is creative space that is best left untapped.

While 10 seconds of combat is sometimes enough to cause the death of pets that take 3 hours real time to make, that's more of an issue with the viability of pets versus players than combat's ability to kill them. So back on the topic of everlastings, I really enjoyed the flavor of these. I'm for seeing them again in some capacity or another.
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
#1723 - 04/08/08 03:40 PM Re: Removals [Re: Cerberus]
Minstrel Offline
journeyman
*****

Registered: 12/14/07
Posts: 90
 Originally Posted By: Harold
So back on the topic of everlastings, I really enjoyed the flavor of these.


You've tasted them? Undead flesh is something even French cuisine wouldn't touch...

Top
#1724 - 04/08/08 04:30 PM Re: Removals [Re: Minstrel]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
nod. They taste a lot like something a necromancer would make. Taking the usually unpalatable skeleton, zombie, ghoul, ghast, and vampire, seasoning with a healthy dose of death knight, lich, and demilich, then mixing them with the renouned herb dracolich you come up with a doughy everlasting body in just two hours! A mere eight hours of baking later and there's a tasty everlasting ready to serve to friends and enemies alike.

Yes, flavor is important, and everlastings went a good way toward that end for me. Perhaps I'm biased though.
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
#1725 - 04/08/08 04:43 PM Re: Removals [Re: Cerberus]
Minstrel Offline
journeyman
*****

Registered: 12/14/07
Posts: 90
 Originally Posted By: Harold
Yes, flavor is important, and everlastings went a good way toward that end for me.


I agree. In fact, I think pets would be a good way to add flavour to the game, except that they're so weak in relation to players. Dragons, undead or otherwise, should be something of an obstacle.

As for necromancers, being a pet guild, I think they aren't as interesting as they could be. Basically, all their pets are nothing more then pre-requisites for bigger pets. There is some slight use for liches and demiliches, but largely, once necromancers get dracoliches and nethergeists, that's all they'll want to make. There's no further point to making smaller pets like vampires or ghasts.

It would be interesting if different pets had different powers. Not necessarily great combat powers, but perhaps one type of undead could carry things, another type of undead could allow its owner to fly with it (think mounted steed in terms of image, even if there's no literal mounts in Darke), etc.

Of course, I'd also like enchanter pets (especially dragon engines) to be overhauled, too. I think pets in general are underutilized by the game. All they are mostly good for is bad combat, lending mana or carrying things. That's a fairly small variety of use.



Top
#1726 - 04/08/08 04:50 PM Re: Removals [Re: Minstrel]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
Sounds like a new thread to me. Ideas are always welcome - who's applying to be a wizard next? ;\)
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
#1985 - 05/20/08 12:53 PM Re: Removals [Re: Cerberus]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far away... we had guild stat modifiers. This meant that when you joined any guild you gained and/or lost stats based on that guild's preferred stats (from the help file). While I'm not really a fan of flat modifiers like this, the idea strikes me as one that could have been done really well.

To outline: If every Xth level gained there was a chance of raising and/or lowering your stats, based on the presumed actions of your guild it would simulate aging to some degree. So for instance, if it were determined that tinkers use dexterity and strength primarily to the detriment of reactions and intelligence a tinker gaining X levels would have a chance to gain some small amount of strength and/or dexterity, and the same chance of losing some small amount of reactions and/or intelligence.

Just a random thought based on a mighty old system that no longer exists. I think it might be interesting and enjoyable. Anyone have any thoughts on it?
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
#1987 - 05/20/08 02:24 PM Re: Removals [Re: Cerberus]
Kim Offline
enthusiast
*****

Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 204
Loc: Europe
Hmmm.. With something like stats, having permanent modifiers be random I am not sure I like. Even less so about the loss. To just use your example as an example: Losing reactions could be quite detrimental to a tinker that likes fighting, and not idling. How about... Every 8 S-levels, a tinker get either a str or a dex increase. Keeps a randomness to it, but assures that at level 40s, all tinkers have gained as many stat points overall. Losing stat points I quite vehemently disagree with \:\)

Getting slightly sidetracked.. What about every X levels, a tinker gets tinker points, which can be used for whatever. Either for dex/str, at the creation cost, or some other tiny abilities of varying cost. Preferably not very powerful abilities, but some small yet still neat things.

Top
#1989 - 05/20/08 03:27 PM Re: Removals [Re: Kim]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
Without loss as well as gains there's no balance. That inherantly improves the higher levels over lower levels further than the abilities they train, and I wouldn't agree with moving in that direction.

The point about what stats are lost is important; however, I think an amicable tie could be found. In the instance of tinkers, if X dexterity is gained, X intelligence is lost. If X strength is gained, X reactions is lost. So we're clear as to what I'm thinking, X should be 0, 1, 2, or at the high end, 3. Assuming 10 levels per check for loss, at level 60 overall you could've lost nearly 18 to one stat (at the very most, assuming the same stats are modified and the maximum change is given) and gained the same 18 to some other stat. I don't think that would border on "detrimental" personally, but maybe the neat factor is not worth the potential danger for players bent on optimized play.
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
#1991 - 05/21/08 12:46 AM Re: Removals [Re: Cerberus]
Minstrel Offline
journeyman
*****

Registered: 12/14/07
Posts: 90
 Originally Posted By: Harold
maybe the neat factor is not worth the potential danger for players bent on optimized play.


I'm not convinced that there is a "neat" factor. It seems arbitrary and emphasizing "guild concept" over individual character concept. The problem with that is not everyone has the same gulld concept. If the coder in charge of this has the concept that tinkers are strong, dumb and ponderous, the stat gain/loss will be detrimental to someone who wants to play a quick, smart elven tinker (an artisan, rather than a big hammerer), for example.

I think that's quite detrimental to a game where personal concept for character is basically the primary fun.


Top
#1999 - 05/27/08 10:10 AM Re: Removals [Re: Minstrel]
Cerberus Administrator Offline
addict
***

Registered: 11/28/07
Posts: 608
Loc: Arlee, MT, USA
Why were elemental instabilities removed? I remember hating these fully as a low level player, and in the attacker-is-invincible-and-does-auto-crits-not-protected-by-armour era to boot. However, they were one of the cooler concepts elementalists had by my account. Maybe they seemed more in the realm of the Chaotic-Lord, but I think with some fine-tuning elemental instabilities could come back. Maybe as low level uncontrolable pets that do low level crits until they explode, some random time later?
_________________________
Please mail your views on balance to:
cerberus@darkemud.com

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Hop to:
April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
Forum Stats
83 Members
33 Forums
335 Topics
2543 Posts

Max Online: 277 @ 01/07/23 02:30 AM

Generated in 0.02 seconds in which 0.004 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.