The Great Defense "Nerf"

[Tisiphone]

Yeah that would be cool if the defense nerf wasn't so retardedly crippling for every class other than Warrior.

Is it really? Note that I'm asking openly, rather than begging the answer; I haven't played a combat class since the code overhaul. Still, if 'tis, it should be discussed and brought to light; I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention.

Does it remain a crippling factor even with some days played on the character? Does the hidden defense skill now have a ridiculously low cap for non guild-Warrior types? I got the impression that the starting levels of defense were simply lowered, rather than the levels across the board.

[Cutthroat]

I've seen a few other PCs I thought were non-warrior that looked like they had some high defenses. I wouldn't say it's retardedly crippling, but I haven't seen so many cases to prove either that it was crippling or still okay.

[Is Friday]

In my experience, you can't really get even half-way decent, (that is to mean, not dying to getting reeled to death by miniature creatures/newbie warriors) before getting a few of the branched skills in the non-warriors guilds. This means you'll have to follow the dumb skill tree to your respective "important" skill for 20-25 days played, and then still suffer the consequences of not being a warrior whenever you're getting into a fight.

In my opinion, this change to defense has forced everyone to go to clans to grind for years if they want their non-warrior to survive more than a few rounds in combat.

[Dalmeth]

In my opinion, this change to defense has forced everyone to go to clans to grind for years if they want their non-warrior to survive more than a few rounds in combat.

Seriously, that was the way it was before.

[Fathi]

While I don't have a ton of experience with playing before the code change, I can offer a bit of anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure if this was the way it was before, but I've had a ranger with 30+ days of playtime, ample combat experience in both sparring and hunting, AND pretty darn good stats get their ass utterly handed to them by multiple characters who were -very- new. Simply because even their newbie-level parry and shield use were enough to fend my character off, and my character had to rely on dodging as a sole means of defense.

[Forest Junkie]

Couple the nerf with reel and critters can in turn reel your pc into oblivion.

[RogueGunslinger]

Hmm. I never really played before the changes either. But I can easily tell you that I've had a newbie character, who was a warrior, completely destroy more than a couple long lived non-warrior PC's. They were probably around 30+ days. If not more like 40-45.

[Dalmeth]

Not too long ago, I lost an exceptionally long lived, combat heavy ranger who lived through the parry nerf.  Yes, it was a parry nerf, if you recall.  Everything had a higher natural chance to parry and that caused an insane amount of dodging.  At least, that's how I remember it being explained.  I hailed it as a chance for non-warriors to finally get hits in on warriors, and for a little while, it was.  Then defense skills caught up, and it went back to the way it was before.  The primary difference now is that combat is faster than before.   There's also the fact that parry, shield use, and armor are utilized more, causing a greater degree of decay among those objects.

I can clearly remember times before the nerf when new warriors my character trained with completely obliterated them with likely half the play time.  It's just a simple fact, warriors dominate in face to face combat.

[Fathi]

I can clearly remember times before the nerf when new warriors my character trained with completely obliterated them with likely half the play time.  It's just a simple fact, warriors dominate in face to face combat.

I don't think anyone's arguing that warriors shouldn't dominate in face to face combat. I think the reason some people are upset is because they don't mind being dominated, they just don't want to be total fodder.

Having a 30-day combat leader ranger -lose- a spar to a newbie warrior wasn't a big deal to me. The thing that irked me was that it was often over in a very short amount of time. I wasn't expecting my character to go toe to toe at length with warriors, but I was thinking it was a little silly that a character with that much combat experience couldn't even hold their own for more than 10 'rounds' of combat scroll.

[Forest Junkie]

You're right Fathi, but one thing we should take into account revolves around stats. If a newbie pc has little combat experience, but amazing stats such as a high str roll, they are going to land some shots. Some nasty ones at that.

[Dalmeth]

Having a 30-day combat leader ranger -lose- a spar to a newbie warrior wasn't a big deal to me. The thing that irked me was that it was often over in a very short amount of time. I wasn't expecting my character to go toe to toe at length with warriors, but I was thinking it was a little silly that a character with that much combat experience couldn't even hold their own for more than 10 'rounds' of combat scroll.

Yeah, the speed of combat has increased considerably since the change.  There is a good argument to say that maybe it should be slowed down to give other guilds a chance, but aren't most of the other guilds hard enough to pin down, given the proper circumstances?

[Tisiphone]

What about vs. npcs?

[Fathi]

What about vs. npcs?

I'd say it depends on the NPC in question.

The same ranger I mentioned, at around 30-35 days of playtime, was still losing about 40-50 HP per fight when fighting things like a single scrab, a single gortok, etc. Upon branching parry and getting a bit more experience under her belt, she could destroy just about anything in her path.

Of course, this character had extremely good endurance, so they usually didn't end up getting reeled when fighting NPCs. I can imagine that things would have been substantially more difficult if she'd gotten a worse endurance roll and was frequently reeled.

[Dalmeth]

What about vs. npcs?

The character I refer to had some rather serious combat training, but I'd say at around thirty to forty days played, he was taking down raptors and the like.  There wasn't that much of a difference after getting parry, seeing as how he got it rather late, but up until then, he could bring down a wide variety of common dangerous critters.

[roughneck]

The problem for rangers is that hunting always comes down to a melee battle.  Nobody plays a ranger hoping to be able to stomp over warriors in combat but they do -need- to be able to take down a scrab or a gortok.  But as far as comparing guilds goes, now that shield use blocks arrows better and the parry skill also can block arrows rangers have less and less options of what they can do if a situation does come up that some badass warrior is after them.  In the end things work out, but I will say it sucks playing a ranger before you do some decent skill notching.

[Yam]

I've played a few merchants. They have had various amounts of combat training. I was never able to confidently take on a jozhal without a substantial lost in hit points even when wearing heavy armor and armed with a giant hammer.

[Malken]

*in his best KISS announcer voice*

You've wanted a class-based system, you've got a class-based system!

[jhunter]

A non-warrior, no matter how much combat experience they have shouldn't be standing toe-to-toe with a warrior anyway. I don't see what the problem is. A ranger should have different tactics against a melee class type. A merchant shouldn't really be in melee with -anything-. *shrugs*

[Thunkkin]

In the end things work out, but I will say it sucks playing a ranger before you do some decent skill notching.

Also frustrating, to a newbie like myself, is that I have no idea even what "skill notching" is.  Now, I'm perfectly content to "just play and discover" and if I branch a skill, "hurrah," and if I don't, "oh well."  But since it seems that everyone else is in on the skills secret, it makes me wonder ... I don't mind being a total push-over right now.  But once my character has had a decade or two of in-game training and life experience, will I still be a total wimp because I haven't known the secret combination of skills to "notch?"  I don't want (or expect) to be uber, but I _would_ like to see my character develop to his full potential (barring early death). 

So I think the situation is a bit bewildering for newbie non-warriors, since not only does it seem that we get stomped by anything and everything, but we have no idea how to actually develop our "class."  I've seen lots of people talk about the joys of "figuring it out" over the course of experimenting with many characters, and I'm fine with that and can appreciate it ... but I really don't want to throw away my character or put him at stupid risk just to figure out a game mechanic.  That seems incredibly OOC to me.  My first character died because I had no conception of what a non-warrior was capable of.  So, OK, lesson learned now ... but that was an OOC lesson that killed what would have been a pretty neat character. 

Anyway, I'm having fun and I enjoy some of the secrecy to the game, but it's frustrating to know that I'll have to go through all this OOC mumbo-jumbo in order to figure out how to just play the skill-side of my character.  Sorry for the semi-derail, since this isn't about defense per se, but it is about the experience of a non-warrior from the eyes of a new-comer.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

A strong leader who understands the OOC side of the game can explain to you IC how to do just about everything, and how to develop your character.

Furthermore, I want to be very clear about a fact. Non-warriors can very well become hard to touch. I've trained some.

[Synthesis]

If you haven't played a ranger or assassin before the defense nerf, and a ranger or assassin after the defense nerf, you really shouldn't be posting in this thread, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

NO IDEA.

Combat was -fine- before the nerf.  Warriors melted faces just -fine-, and rangers and assassins could still play in crucial supporting roles -without- having to rely on a warrior buddy to "tank."

I'd really like to know how the ratio of rangers:warriors has changed following the nerf.  Used to be, -everyone- was playing a ranger, because they could eventually fight fairly decently, and they got a bunch of cool skills to boot.  Now, there are actually posts in game basically begging for people to play rangers, because nobody wants to go through (edit: Or nobody survives) the 50+ day Ordeal by Fire it takes to reach the point where you no longer get your ass handed to you by your average local wildlife.

p.s. D-elves don't count for this discussion, because they play by a totally different set of rules.

[staggerlee]

A strong leader who understands the OOC side of the game can explain to you IC how to do just about everything, and how to develop your character.

Furthermore, I want to be very clear about a fact. Non-warriors can very well become hard to touch. I've trained some.

Agreed there.

In my experience non-warriors can become quite competent in a fight. They lack some of the skills that give warriors a substantial edge, but as far as the ability to avoid damage and deal punishment they get by just fine.   But it does take proper training and experience.

[Sokotra]

I didn't realize it was that bad.  I just thought that they changed it so that some single tough guy could still get beat up by a few noobs, just for realism sake unless the guy is like a super-ninja or something.  I could see how it could be annoying for a veteran ranger that is still getting owned by average critters in the wastes... but then again, I don't want to role up some 40 yr old veteran guard and not be able to defend myself just because I don't have hours and hours of sparring under my belt.  *shrug*  ...Which still happens, but I guess at least you can get a few friends and have a chance against someone that has been sparring every day for hours.  I don't know, I haven't seen every situation... I was just hoping they tried to balance things out a bit... especially for those of us that don't have as much time to play as we would like.

[Forest Junkie]

A strong leader who understands the OOC side of the game can explain to you IC how to do just about everything, and how to develop your character.

Furthermore, I want to be very clear about a fact. Non-warriors can very well become hard to touch. I've trained some.

Shatuka and other badass rangers were around before the nerf. It's still possible to become a badass with a ranger, but one definitely won't see them tanking a warrior.

I also agree that non-warrior guilds can and should lose to experienced warriors. However, this was already the case before the code change.

[flurry]

Everything remains playable, in my experience. Combat can be more dangerous, and certain NPCs are more dangerous. It's a harsh world. Having said that, I wouldn't mind of the pendulum swung back in the other direction some, but I don't think it's that bad.

[brytta.leofa]

Can rangers hunt effectively in the south now?  Could they before?

By "effectively" I mean something like "at 10 days played, without spending more in arrows than the critter's worth."

[Synthesis]

I didn't realize it was that bad.  I just thought that they changed it so that some single tough guy could still get beat up by a few noobs, just for realism sake unless the guy is like a super-ninja or something.  I could see how it could be annoying for a veteran ranger that is still getting owned by average critters in the wastes... but then again, I don't want to role up some 40 yr old veteran guard and not be able to defend myself just because I don't have hours and hours of sparring under my belt.  *shrug*  ...Which still happens, but I guess at least you can get a few friends and have a chance against someone that has been sparring every day for hours.  I don't know, I haven't seen every situation... I was just hoping they tried to balance things out a bit... especially for those of us that don't have as much time to play as we would like.

That might be why they changed it.  However, as a consequence of this, classes that lack parry now have all the effective defense of a mewling kitten.

[Synthesis]

Can rangers hunt effectively in the south now?  Could they before?

By "effectively" I mean something like "at 10 days played, without spending more in arrows than the critter's worth."

Prior to the defense nerf, a ranger could hunt scrabs solo without getting pinched more than once after about 5-7 days of Byn training.  Nowadays, avoiding the pinch is practically impossible...the only question is whether you can bring it down by superior offense before it gets more than 2 attacks in on you.

Considering the fact that I've seen guys get reeled to death by those (formerly) pathetically wimpy snakes that occasionally lurk around certain places...I'm not sure that's a risk most sane players are willing to take.

[X-D]

I think Synthesis is overstating just a bit.

But, I'll tell you what I miss since the addition of reel combined with the parry nerf.

Combat emotes. I used to love combat emotes, even got mention on mine from an overlord before. And used to be that even a non-combat class could get defense high enough to get an emote or two off before fleeing or dying. Now, nope, defense on non-warriors is so low that the risk of getting reel locked is too high to even risk it. I myself never minded the long half day battles between a couple of vet warriors before reel and parry nerf, oh sure, a few people complained, but for me, hey, it is a fantasy game of roleplay, man I loved having time to come up with snazzy emotes and banter with my opponent like in books and movies. Sadly, that is long gone.

[Fathi]

Can rangers hunt effectively in the south now?  Could they before?

By "effectively" I mean something like "at 10 days played, without spending more in arrows than the critter's worth."

I never played a ranger in the south before the code changes, but I had little luck doing it in early '07. Jozhals were the only prey my character could take without having a warrior (or sometimes two) engage the animal for them.

And generally, the cost of archery wasn't a concern because the winds were bad enough that you couldn't waste ammunition even if you wanted.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

• Rangers need traps to compensate for the way combat treats them now, both ranged and hand-to-hand. Otherwise, they are fine.
• Assassins need a better system for determining their backstab and sap skills, so that training them is just as hard, but not so OOC in many cases. Otherwise, they are fine.
• Warriors are just fine.
• Any other class that wants to fight can deal with what they get.
• We need a subclass that offers the four basic weapon skills and parry at a low cap. Call it fighter. This will nearly murder guild-sniffing of any kind, and really offers nothing at all to unbalance the game. We have every other occupation but being a soldier available by sub-guild. Even it out.
  

[Forest Junkie]

• Rangers need traps to compensate for the way combat treats them now, both ranged and hand-to-hand. Otherwise, they are fine.
• Assassins need a better system for determining their backstab and sap skills, so that training them is just as hard, but not so OOC in many cases. Otherwise, they are fine.
• Warriors are just fine.
• Any other class that wants to fight can deal with what they get.
• We need a subclass that offers the four basic weapon skills and parry at a low cap. Call it fighter. This will nearly murder guild-sniffing of any kind, and really offers nothing at all to unbalance the game. We have every other occupation but being a soldier available by sub-guild. Even it out.
  

YES PLEASE

[Qzzrbl]

Why not make 'parry' eventually branchable for all classes?

It just doesn't make sense to me that any character (Other than those that do get parry), regardless of guild, doesn't eventually think, "Hey, I should maybe try hitting this guy's sword with my sword and maybe not get my ass majorly handed to me."

I'm not saying make the other classes anywhere close to being able to take a warrior. I'm just saying give that 50+ day burglar at least a a chance of getting away from a newbie warrior.

Maybe even give 'em a boost to "flee"?

[staggerlee]

Why not make 'parry' eventually branchable for all classes?

It just doesn't make sense to me that any character (Other than those that do get parry), regardless of guild, doesn't eventually think, "Hey, I should maybe try hitting this guy's sword with my sword and maybe not get my ass majorly handed to me."

I'm not saying make the other classes anywhere close to being able to take a warrior. I'm just saying give that 50+ day burglar at least a a chance of getting away from a newbie warrior.

Maybe even give 'em a boost to "flee"?

A 50+ burglar that's actually been training his combat will do just fine against a fresh out of the box newbie warrior.

[Synthesis]

Why not make 'parry' eventually branchable for all classes?

It just doesn't make sense to me that any character (Other than those that do get parry), regardless of guild, doesn't eventually think, "Hey, I should maybe try hitting this guy's sword with my sword and maybe not get my ass majorly handed to me."

I'm not saying make the other classes anywhere close to being able to take a warrior. I'm just saying give that 50+ day burglar at least a a chance of getting away from a newbie warrior.

Maybe even give 'em a boost to "flee"?

A 50+ burglar that's actually been training his combat will do just fine against a fresh out of the box newbie warrior.

Ha, yeah...and a week later (once his primary weapon skill easily outclasses your maxed base defense), he'll be handing you your ass with a flourish.

I think the more relevant issue here is:  why should you have to spend 1,000+ hours of your life only to be able to do "just fine" against someone who just rolled up a newbie warrior?  And if you're only doing "just fine" against newbie warriors, what about the uberguards of crime-code doom?

[Spoon]

The grass is always greener. I personally think the defense nerf is great. It's far more fickle, as it should be.

Rangers getting pinched by scrabs? Great. It's a huge beastly insect designed for killing prey of about humanoid size. Players should not feel comfortable taking on something like that on their own. I hate the way things like scrabs totally lose their deadly, Zalanthas-style appeal because they're the first monster people run into and known to be weaker than most dangerous mobs. Everything now has the potential to be as dangerous as the brutal, low-fantasy setting intends.

[Qzzrbl]

It's a huge beastly insect designed for killing prey of about humanoid size. Players should not feel comfortable taking on something like that on their own.

Then why should warriors?

I'm by no means saying "Balance the guilds for combat."

I love that warriors can get better at combat than any other guild.

[Synthesis]

The grass is always greener. I personally think the defense nerf is great. It's far more fickle, as it should be.

Rangers getting pinched by scrabs? Great. It's a huge beastly insect designed for killing prey of about humanoid size. Players should not feel comfortable taking on something like that on their own. I hate the way things like scrabs totally lose their deadly, Zalanthas-style appeal because they're the first monster people run into and known to be weaker than most dangerous mobs. Everything now has the potential to be as dangerous as the brutal, low-fantasy setting intends.

Yeah, it's all fun and games until it's your -job- to bring in scrab shells/duskhorn horns/etc., but you can't ever get it done until your newbie warrior buddy logs in so he can tank for you.

For that matter, why in the hell do warriors even -get- the skinning skill without having to pick subguild hunter?  "I've been training all my life for combat...and oh, by the way...I've got a pretty fly sense of anatomy as well."

I feel like rangers now are little midgets that people carry around in their backpacks just in case a storm breaks out or they need something poisoned. 

And as always, this doesn't apply to d-elves and other karma-required races.

[Qzzrbl]

I wish I could be actually scared when I see a scrab pop up and I'm by myself. Like, "OMGWTFBBQKITTEN!" scared, like when a tarantula or beetle is a few rooms away.

I'd like to think hunting game like scrabs should be a group effort. Get 2-3 rangers, maybe a warrior thrown in the mix to hunt stuff like that.

[brytta.leofa]

I think that an adult character of the dominant race, playing the dominant hunting class, with an IC year of intensive training, ought to be able to reliably solo-hunt at least one common critter within a reasonable journey of the biggest population center. 

That's just from the perspective of More Better Fun; in-character, Allanak and environs are what they are.

[Synthesis]

I wish I could be actually scared when I see a scrab pop up and I'm by myself. Like, "OMGWTFBBQKITTEN!" scared, like when a tarantula or beetle is a few rooms away.

I'd like to think hunting game like scrabs should be a group effort. Get 2-3 rangers, maybe a warrior thrown in the mix to hunt stuff like that.

Man, the solo hunter is Armageddon's oldest and noblest profession.  Not only that, but it's the most comfortable for newbies who are uncomfortable displaying their noobishness around others, and it's the role of choice for misanthropes who enjoy the game.

Furthermore, if every hunting trip is going to require 2-3 people...why would anyone -choose- to be the weakest link?  If you know that you're going to need 2-3 guys to get any hunting job done, and you want to play a hunter...why in the HELL would you choose to play the guy who has the greatest chance of incurring the random wrath of a shitty defense roll?

Beyond that, what about roles that pretty much require soloing around?  How are you going to support your raider in-between raids if you can't even kill scrabs to eat?  It's not like there's a whole hell of a lot of other options for hunting in the south.

I'd -really- hate to see everything reduced down to "join a team or suffer scrab death."

And to cop out for my last point:

Scrab     (General)

Common in the areas surrounding Allanak, these insectoid creatures stand taller and larger than the average human, and their heads are fringed with a multitude of milky, translucent eyes. These beasts, while fairly common, have an aggressive hunter's instinct and a back terrible for riding, and thus are never used as mounts. They are often easy prey to the hunters of Allanak and the southlands, with a pale, soft yellow meat within their thorax, a head that if cooked properly is considered a delicacy, and a tough shell that can often be sold for coins in the larger cities.

[flurry]

This is an interesting discussion, but could people be careful about what you're revealing about skill trees, for the sake of our newer players? If it's not in the help files, we shouldn't be talking about what skills branch for which classes.

[Synthesis]

This is an interesting discussion, but could people be careful about what you're revealing about skill trees, for the sake of our newer players? If it's not in the help files, we shouldn't be talking about what skills branch for which classes.

Exceptional rangers are able to move silently and remain unseen in the wilderness, detect sounds from far away, work with poisons, and parry enemy blows.

Highly skilled assassins tend to become more akin to warriors late in their careers. Having mastered the basic skills, an assassin will often begin to learn a mastery of parrying enemy attacks.

So...what's the problem?

[flurry]

Try help warrior and your rant about one of their skills.

[Myrdryn]

Are you just talking about reeling blows, or something else?

[Forest Junkie]

It's far more fickle, as it should be.

Why should defense be fickle?

[Delstro]

Well, I definately like the nerf.

Before the nerf, I once took a ranger with awesome stats out to hunt scrab at 5 hours old. I beat the shit out of it. I am probably the cause of the nerf actually. I definately enjoy how it is now, but... I do get pissed when I had a one hour old warrior with good stats have my initial sparring session with a Byn Trooper that was in for 4 IC years and I handed it to him, and blew a kiss.

[Dalmeth]

Are you just talking about reeling blows, or something else?

I think what's being referred to is the combination of reeling, the speed at which characters take damage, and a perceived increase in the combat skills of smaller creatures.

[Synthesis]

Are you just talking about reeling blows, or something else?

We're talking about the (relatively) recent code change to combat, which fixed a "bug" that enabled characters without the parrying skill to nevertheless parry somewhat effectively.

As a consequence of this, classes who lack the parrying skill have taken a fairly severe blow to their overall ability to defend themselves, against pretty much everything.  As a result, it's become very difficult for such classes to "do their thing," so to speak.

[Armaddict]

OMG, you mean rangers can't just go out and start hunting without fear, straight out of the box, by themselves, anymore?

Travesty!

Warriors beat snot out of people, when the vast majority of all of their skills are in the 'combat' portion of the skill list?

TRAVESTY!

Hitpoint loss comes faster, hits come harder, and there are fewer half-day and day-long fights when people with weapons are going at each other with lethal intent?

ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY!


Seriously.

[RogueGunslinger]

The bluntness of your post actually worked to persuade me to your point of view... How often does that shit actually work for you?

[evil_erdlu]

I've been known to be a great minmaxer both in tabletop games and in MUDs I played. I didn't have a chance to play a real fighting guild in this MUD yet, but I still had a bit of experience with the new code.

One of my characters, even though absolutely not a fighting guild, sparred with his friends a few times and tried solo-hunting a few small critters. From what I understand, there's an invisible 'offense' and 'defense' skill for every character because even though my character's purpose was giving up after a few tries (I would try, try, try, then accept that I was no hunter, I believed I would never improve not having the necessary weapon skills) but my character did improve and he improved rather quickly.

I believe inability to kill critters may be caused by rather being 'encumbered'.. When my load was even 'easily manageable', as the staff promised after the change to encumbrance, my fighting prowess would take a great hit.

Of course, my experience is really limited. I just wanted to chime in and ask if people are careful about their encumbrance levels, because it does affect combat stuff right now.

[Yam]

The murder of dozens of merchants by unassuming, chicken-sized jozhals is most definitely not a result of encumbrance.

[jhunter]

• Rangers need traps to compensate for the way combat treats them now, both ranged and hand-to-hand. Otherwise, they are fine.
• Assassins need a better system for determining their backstab and sap skills, so that training them is just as hard, but not so OOC in many cases. Otherwise, they are fine.
• Warriors are just fine.
• Any other class that wants to fight can deal with what they get.
• We need a subclass that offers the four basic weapon skills and parry at a low cap. Call it fighter. This will nearly murder guild-sniffing of any kind, and really offers nothing at all to unbalance the game. We have every other occupation but being a soldier available by sub-guild. Even it out.
  

YES PLEASE

I think this is a fantastic idea. If you want a pc to have a smattering of melee ability but not have it be their primary focus it would solve some problems for people.

[Synthesis]

OMG, you mean rangers can't just go out and start hunting without fear, straight out of the box, by themselves, anymore?

Travesty!

Warriors beat snot out of people, when the vast majority of all of their skills are in the 'combat' portion of the skill list?

TRAVESTY!
Hitpoint loss comes faster, hits come harder, and there are fewer half-day and day-long fights when people with weapons are going at each other with lethal intent?

ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY!


Seriously.

Way to set up a straw man and knock it down, dude.  However, since you want to be serious, I'll fix it up for you.

OMG, you mean rangers can't just go out and start hunting without fear, straight out of the box, by themselves, anymore?

First of all, rangers have never been able to go "straight out of the box" and start hunting without fear.  There's always been a 2-3 day "danger zone" where even hunting something as innocuous as tandu could get you seriously injured.  Around Allanak, rangers have a long and storied history of being forced to join the Byn before they could engage in any sort of hunting activity in the southlands.

Let's examine the documentation:

A ranger possesses two primary abilities: to know where he/she is at all times and to stalk and kill prey (for food).

If nothing else, rangers are superior hunters and can typically feed themselves in such places as the Grey Forest (q.v.), and can bring back skins of animals to sell.

So, from this, shouldn't we expect that rangers should, you know...actually be able to do such things?  It doesn't say "experienced rangers can finally begin hunting."  It doesn't say "after mastering the martial arts, rangers can finally be employed as hunters."  It doesn't say "after a long and arduous process of being creamed by everything larger than a tregil, rangers can finally begin to ply their trade."

Furthermore, why should warriors be able to go out and hunt with so little to fear?  As it stands, if you want to play a solo hunter, warrior is by far the best pick, because again, you don't have to go through the arduous process of skilling up your base defense and trying doggedly to branch parry.  After a couple of days, warriors can pretty easily avoid the attacks of most of the "game" critters, both north and south.  Try doing that with a ranger, and you're liable to get reeled to death.

Warriors beat snot out of people, when the vast majority of all of their skills are in the 'combat' portion of the skill list?

Nobody is arguing that warriors shouldn't be the ultimate masters of toe-to-toe combat, so this is largely irrelevant.  However, I am of the opinion that a 0 hour warrior should not be able to seriously injure a reasonably well-trained 10-day ranger or assassin in any way, shape, or form.  It is quite possible to construct a combat algorithm that allows warriors to be masters at the upper end of the spectrum, while preserving the idea that time spent in-game counts for something when you're not playing a warrior.  As it stands, yes, a 10-day ranger will probably beat a 0-hour warrior, but it is equally probable that he will take some fairly grievous damage while doing so, and this is entirely because of the defense nerf.

Hitpoint loss comes faster, hits come harder, and there are fewer half-day and day-long fights when people with weapons are going at each other with lethal intent?

This would be fine if it didn't apply only to combat-oriented classes without the parry skill.  Once warriors have trained parry reasonably well, damage from "tough" beasties is fairly consistent and predictable, while "easy" and "moderate" beasties probably won't land any blows at all.  However, without the parry skill, fights against "moderate" beasties turn on a roll of the dice (is he going to land a vicious claw to my head before I can drop him?) and fights against "tough" beasties are well nigh impossible, because they'll hit you every time.  (And by "tough" I don't mean meks, bahamets, and silt horrors.) Keep in mind that this applies as long as it takes you to branch the parry skill, which for both rangers and assassins is typically a very long time.  So again...why should it be easier for a warrior to hunt than it is for a ranger? 

Furthermore, why should the parry skill be such a huge normalizing influence on defensive capability versus critters?  I mean, isn't parrying kind of geared toward knocking away other weapons?  I'd love to see parry taken out of the equation for combat vs. critters, because then even -warriors- would be pissing and moaning about the defense nerf.

P.S. And, as always, these considerations largely don't apply to desert elves, because they're apparently to cool to be schooled.

[Armaddict]

Way to set up a straw man and knock it down, dude.  However, since you want to be serious, I'll fix it up for you.

Actually, all I'm saying is that I'm getting absolutely winded trying to talk about these same 'problems' that have been brought up before and after the defense 'nerf' repeatedly.  Over and over.

I won't bother quoting your large, spaced out replies.  But yes, the Ranger helpfiles are accurate.  Yes, it is harder to SOLO-hunt in the southlands.  Yes, it is entirely possible and even -easy- to solo hunt in the northlands, and make a huge profit doing so.  No, parry is not an essential skill to hunting unless you're trying to go out and 'hunt' large game at 3 days playing time.

As far as the warrior-hunter concern is brought up...the last time I tried it, I could solo hunt out-of-the-box, yes.  However, that character died to a 'faint shape' in a storm I couldn't escape.

My suggestion for your problems with 10 day rangers and assassins not being able to murder all out the new warriors?  Stop trying to make toe-to-toe oriented soldier types with the expectation that it won't matter.  Make a scout, where your expectation is not to stand toe to toe.  Make a more clear-cut role for yourself rather than just demanding that everyone be able to do everything in exactly the way you want them to.  Warriors hunting, and rangers soldiering (not in the way it sounds, but where one tries to make a ranger a warrior), is one of the things I wanted to see changeable in Arm 2.  They can do each other's jobs, yes, but in very very specific ways.

Stop making this into a WoW-like class balance discussion.  Play the class and the role you want to play.  Everything I have played since the 'nerf', none of which are warriors...have been fine.  You just have to stop bumbling into combat and looking for combat at every given opportunity.

Maybe it's about time my IC advice to several will actually be followed.  There's more to combat than 'dismount;e;kill/assist'.  There are roles to be filled to use everyone effectively and efficiently.  Enjoy, because I am.

[Malken]

Everything would be great again if they would just copy-paste the northern grasslands east of Allanak. It'd take a minute only, I'm sure. No need for an IC explanation, we can all just agree that it
was always there, right, guys?

[Forest Junkie]

I think the southlands simply needs smaller critters that can be hunted. Gol Krathu currently has tandu, female/colt duskhorns (not the damn bulls), tregil, skeet, ritikki, etc. These critters listed are fairly easy to hunt, and all yield raw goods that can be sold/crafted into cooked food/pelts/arrows from the feathers acquired, etc.

Vrun Driath has...jozhals. Which, arguably, can rape face on a new ranger. I think what we as players and staff should do is come up with possibly two to three small critters than are considered virtual atm, but can easily be turned into npcs that newbie rangers can hunt in relative safety.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I think the southlands simply needs smaller critters that can be hunted. Gol Krathu currently has tandu, female/colt duskhorns (not the damn bulls), tregil, skeet, ritikki, etc. These critters listed are fairly easy to hunt, and all yield raw goods that can be sold/crafted into cooked food/pelts/arrows from the feathers acquired, etc.

Vrun Driath has...jozhals. Which, arguably, can rape face on a new ranger. I think what we as players and staff should do is come up with possibly two to three small critters than are considered virtual atm, but can easily be turned into npcs that newbie rangers can hunt in relative safety.

Agreed. It would not be hard at all. We already have numbers of reptialian skinning products, no need to make new ones. Just use those and create a few NPCs that utilize them as skeletons and skins. I have millions of little creatures scurrying about in my brain. Surely, I can pluck one or two out for the edification of His Empire.

[Qzzrbl]

Everything would be great again if they would just copy-paste the northern grasslands east of Allanak. It'd take a minute only, I'm sure. No need for an IC explanation, we can all just agree that it
was always there, right, guys?

Magick could solve this.

[Sokotra]

I think the southlands simply needs smaller critters that can be hunted. Gol Krathu currently has tandu, female/colt duskhorns (not the damn bulls), tregil, skeet, ritikki, etc. These critters listed are fairly easy to hunt, and all yield raw goods that can be sold/crafted into cooked food/pelts/arrows from the feathers acquired, etc.

Vrun Driath has...jozhals. Which, arguably, can rape face on a new ranger. I think what we as players and staff should do is come up with possibly two to three small critters than are considered virtual atm, but can easily be turned into npcs that newbie rangers can hunt in relative safety.

Mid-sized would be nice... something bigger than a jozhal, but smaller than a scrab or giant beetle.  Deer size, maybe a tougher species of escru... wild escru?

[Halcyon]

After reading through the various (and lengthy) arguments on this topic, I am having a hard time not hearing it in terms of bartle-playstyles.  I think the current system is fine if you want to play anything but a serious achiever.  In that case, there seems to me to be a huge coded and social hurdle you have to climb in the first 3(?) days played, because otherwise you just get to keep playing fresh characters caught in the same situation, which will piss off achievers really quickly.

I also think that the current state of affairs is forcing limited role selection.  If you play a warrior, you have to have a crafting subguild if you don't want to immediately join a house/social group with an active population of people in the right play time hours with the right class balance.  If you play a ranger or assassin, you are forced into a similar set of choices out of lack of ability to get the job done solo, or afford enough arrows to level archery skills.  It may be that I haven't figured out the expert knowledge, order of critters to hunt, optimized equipment selections, or whatever, but I've sunk around two hundred hours of play into starting warriors since I started, and I'm usually pretty good at figuring this kind of thing out.

After having game mastered in tabletop and online games, and having known my share of powergamers and E/S people who want to publish the world and game system, I understand why this combination of systems is in place.  However, this nerf discussion and my experiences in game have me wondering if combat has been tuned too far in one direction.

This post brought to you by the Committee for Introvert Achievers.

[Gimfalisette]

I also think that the current state of affairs is forcing limited role selection.  If you play a warrior, you have to have a crafting subguild if you don't want to immediately join a house/social group with an active population of people in the right play time hours with the right class balance.  If you play a ranger or assassin, you are forced into a similar set of choices out of lack of ability to get the job done solo, or afford enough arrows to level archery skills.  It may be that I haven't figured out the expert knowledge, order of critters to hunt, optimized equipment selections, or whatever, but I've sunk around two hundred hours of play into starting warriors since I started, and I'm usually pretty good at figuring this kind of thing out.

It sounds more like your choice of introversion is forcing limited role selection on you, rather than the code or anything else about the game. Why so wary about getting involved with the playerbase and finding out IC? (Yes, all the stuff you seek to know can be learned IC.)

[Synthesis]

I'm going to repost something that I mentioned previously, because it got buried in a lengthier post:

Why should the parry skill provide such a normalizing influence on defense vs. critters?  Doesn't parrying you know, involve knocking away -weapons-?  Why should a warrior's or anybody else's parry skill factor into defense vs. critter at all?  I can understand a warrior being more proficient in a fight against like, armed gith or desert-elves...but why would a warrior, who presumably knows jack -shit- about how a scrab or anything else fights, be so much better at it than a ranger?  Let's get realistic and at least even the playing field.

I think if the Imms removed parry from the equation here, everyone would be bitching about the nerf, because then every class would get to taste exactly how much it sucks.  Let's see how you like your 10-day warrior getting his shit pushed in by a scrab or anything else with a strength roll above a jozhal's.

Let's spread the madness and force everyone to go out in groups of 3 or more, packing heaps of bandages for the poor bastard who gets attacked first!  Woohoo!

[flurry]

can understand a warrior being more proficient in a fight against like, armed gith or desert-elves...but why would a warrior, who presumably knows jack -shit- about how a scrab or anything else fights, be so much better at it than a ranger?

Aren't warriors supposed to be head and shoulders above everyone in melee combat?

I think the level playing field (if that's even desirable) comes through the rangers' other tactics.

[Synthesis]

If warriors know so much about fighting scrabs...why aren't they rangers?

My point is:  warriors spend a lot of time inside cities, fighting other humanoids.  Why should they get a bonus to fighting non-weapon-wielding, non-humanoids, simply based on their experience fighting weapon-wielding humanoids?  Why does parrying work against things that aren't wielding weapons?

Warriors will still own against all other PC classes in combat.  I don't see what the problem is. 

I think it's pretty fair to say that the ability to parry a bite, a claw, or a goring attempt is a a bug that should be fixed.  If you want to be able to kill scrabs, you can raise your base defense like everybody else.

[Halcyon]

It sounds more like your choice of introversion is forcing limited role selection on you, rather than the code or anything else about the game. Why so wary about getting involved with the playerbase and finding out IC? (Yes, all the stuff you seek to know can be learned IC.)

No offense, but it seems to miss the point to say that all players, regardless of time played, preferred playstyle, or who they encounter, should be required to get all information from someone else. 

[Gimfalisette]

It sounds more like your choice of introversion is forcing limited role selection on you, rather than the code or anything else about the game. Why so wary about getting involved with the playerbase and finding out IC? (Yes, all the stuff you seek to know can be learned IC.)

No offense, but it seems to miss the point to say that all players, regardless of time played, preferred playstyle, or who they encounter, should be required to get all information from someone else. 

You're exaggerating what I've said. All players should be (and are) required to get a significant portion of their information about the game world from other players. If you choose not to interact, then you're choosing to be uninformed.

[Sokotra]

If warriors know so much about fighting scrabs...why aren't they rangers?

My point is:  warriors spend a lot of time inside cities, fighting other humanoids.  Why should they get a bonus to fighting non-weapon-wielding, non-humanoids, simply based on their experience fighting weapon-wielding humanoids?  Why does parrying work against things that aren't wielding weapons?

Warriors will still own against all other PC classes in combat.  I don't see what the problem is. 

I think it's pretty fair to say that the ability to parry a bite, a claw, or a goring attempt is a a bug that should be fixed.  If you want to be able to kill scrabs, you can raise your base defense like everybody else.

I hear where you are coming from, but what about people that play warriors that have spent most of their lives out in the wastes as caravan guards or something like that where they might spend a lot of time defending themselves and others from nasty critters?   I'm not sure I would classify parrying bites/claws/antlers as a bug.  To me parrying is a little more like a generic message that doesn't always have to mean "knocking a weapon aside".  But then again, like I said, why couldn't a warrior that has spent his life protecting dune trader's in the waste knock aside (or otherwise block/avert) a claw or toothy maw with their weapon while dodging at the same time or something?  I don't see a problem.  To me it is just warriors being better at combat than other classes.  I think there would be better options for others, like maybe a "fighter" subguild or some other "fix" that might give everyone a low cap parry capability or something, I don't know.  Warriors are supposed to be much better than the other classes at combat... they can't poison weapons(which can be an enormous advantage), guide themselves through sandstorms, backstab, etc.  I've had plenty of warriors in the past that have been fairly tough get owned by various special skills and abilities that others have that my warriors did not have.  Like I said, I wouldn't mind some sort of minor adjustment, but I'd hate to see a warrior lose their advantage of being a.... warrior afterall.

Oh yeah, and I forgot about the massive archery skill that some rangers seem to have that can kill you in a few shots.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Look.

Damn the defense nerf. Rangers are supposed to shoot at shit. Rangers also need to have trapping capabilities. Rangers are not supposed to be focusing on hand-to-hand skills. Rangers should be able to set traps that are visible with the skill scan at high enough levels. Point blank and simple, Rangers need traps to complete them as a class.

Assassins have backstab, poison, and another skill at some point that allows them to serve as they should. They don't need to be focusing on hand-to-hand combat either, but they certianly do need a way to bring their primary attack to a reasonable level in a reasonable amount of time.

Warriors are hand-to-hand monsters.

All is as it should be, point-blank and simple. If you are worried about your assassin/ranger serving as a soldier, then either find a group that has a division for them, or tough it out. I have personally put a theif through a military program. That thief wiped the ground with warriors, rangers, and assassins, and would take a beetle out faster than many warriors did. Scrab? Bwahahaha. Why? Because the thief spent enough time working on what he/she need to work on that they were able to function in the role of a soldier.

If a thief can do it, so can a ranger or assassin. This complaining is starting to bother me. Your classes are what they are supposed to be. Let your boss know where your talents lie and leave the rest to the game.

[Synthesis]

Warriors were hand-to-hand combat monsters before the defense nerf.

If the defense nerf were revoked tonight, warriors would still be hand-to-hand combat monsters.

I'm so tired of this red herring.

Rangers should be able to hunt things without having to be masters of archery.  Ordinary, run of the mill desert critters should not present the insuperable offensive problem that they currently do, because of the defense nerf.

I think some of you need to step back from your "zomg, my warrior is so awesome compared to everybody else now" perspective, and look at it from the perspective of a newbie ranger or assassin trying to claw his way up in the world.  The defense nerf is crippling to these combat-oriented guilds, because your ability to defend yourself against anything with moderate strength is virtually nil. NIL.

We're talking 12-day characters unable to dodge or parry a single blow.  We're talking about 5-day characters getting reel-locked by common, previously wimpy desert animals.

Nobody is trying to nerf warriors.  Hell, warriors would benefit just as much from the defense nerf being revoked as anyone else would, because their defense would presumably be increased by an equal amount.

As far as other skills are concerned, they're largely irrelevant.  We're talking about a stupid, unrealistic, crippling inability to defend oneself, that was the result of a single change to the code.  The situation was perfectly well under control before the nerf, and it will be perfectly well under control if the nerf is revoked or modified to be somewhat less drastic.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

If defense -actually- treats assassins and rangers differently than warriors, fine, but if it is just that defense works the same across the board and it is the lack of parry that matters, then what is occuring now is fine. I am not on a 'OMG my warrior rocks kick'. Please do not confuse me with someone who is biased about any particular class, when it comes to balance.

[Yam]

I haven't seen many issues with player on player or humanoid NPC combat.

My pet issue involves non-warrior newbies fighting jozhals and small snakes and gimpka rats and what not.

I have had a merchant decked out in armor and equipped with a shield and spear almost murdered by a jozhal. It ruins my immersion!

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

My pet issue involves non-warrior newbies fighting jozhals and small snakes and gimpka rats and what not.

This problem has always existed, though. That's something that has always been an issue since the conception of the game. I agree, it is annoying. But the defense nerf had shit to do with this. You still couldn't hit a johzal back in the day, ranger or assassin.

[brytta.leofa]

To me parrying is a little more like a generic message that doesn't always have to mean "knocking a weapon aside".

I disagree; parrying is a very specific thing.  I don't think you can knock aside a scrab's pinch or a mekillot's bite: either you dodge (the code gives a dodge message), or the critter gets a mouthful of sword (the code penalizes it for fighting unarmed--at least I hope this is what happens).

Make parry only work vs. weapons.  If animals start owning warriors excessively, make sure that they're feeling the effects of unarmed combat to an appropriate degree.

[Sokotra]

I haven't seen many issues with player on player or humanoid NPC combat.

My pet issue involves non-warrior newbies fighting jozhals and small snakes and gimpka rats and what not.

I have had a merchant decked out in armor and equipped with a shield and spear almost murdered by a jozhal. It ruins my immersion!

As I've said before, these little critters are and should be vicious.  To me a jozhal is like a small raptor.  However, I do agree that if you go up against a jozhal with lots of armor, a shield, and a spear... you should not have any problem against it - no matter what class you are.  Maybe armor needs to be more useful in certain cases. 

[Sokotra]

To me parrying is a little more like a generic message that doesn't always have to mean "knocking a weapon aside".

I disagree; parrying is a very specific thing.  I don't think you can knock aside a scrab's pinch or a mekillot's bite: either you dodge (the code gives a dodge message), or the critter gets a mouthful of sword (the code penalizes it for fighting unarmed--at least I hope this is what happens).

Make parry only work vs. weapons.  If animals start owning warriors excessively, make sure that they're feeling the effects of unarmed combat to an appropriate degree.

Animals are different... their claws, teeth, and antlers ARE their weapons... so I think it is fine how it is for the most part.  A minor adjustment to even things out a little more for the other classes would be fine, if there is indeed a major issue.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

You ought to have problems hitting it. You should -not- have problems not dying to it.

[brytta.leofa]

I disagree; parrying is a very specific thing.  I don't think you can knock aside a scrab's pinch or a mekillot's bite: either you dodge (the code gives a dodge message), or the critter gets a mouthful of sword (the code penalizes it for fighting unarmed--at least I hope this is what happens).

Animals are different... their claws, teeth, and antlers ARE their weapons... so I think it is fine how it is for the most part.  A minor adjustment to even things out a little more for the other classes would be fine, if there is indeed a major issue.

The difference is that hitting a weapon with a weapon will, at worst, damage the weapons.  Hitting a body part with a weapon is something other than parry.  Would you knock aside a gorilla's arm aside with a sword?  Or a cougar's leap?

I'm not necessarily arguing for a different game balance here; just for using skills in a way that seems most realistic.  If warriors, losing parry vs. carru, need a higher dodge ability in order to be as buff as they're supposed to be, that's okay.  But I do indeed like the notion of human vs. animal combat being markedly different from human vs. human.

[Yam]

I haven't seen many issues with player on player or humanoid NPC combat.

My pet issue involves non-warrior newbies fighting jozhals and small snakes and gimpka rats and what not.

I have had a merchant decked out in armor and equipped with a shield and spear almost murdered by a jozhal. It ruins my immersion!

As I've said before, these little critters are and should be vicious.  To me a jozhal is like a small raptor.  However, I do agree that if you go up against a jozhal with lots of armor, a shield, and a spear... you should not have any problem against it - no matter what class you are.  Maybe armor needs to be more useful in certain cases. 

It is quite clear from their helpfiles, descriptions, and assessings that these things are not meant to be dangerous.

Jozhal : These small, desert-dwelling reptiles are hunted for their skin, which, supple and finely scaled, betrays a shimmering multitude of colors. Occasionally, they are kept by nobles and wealthy merchants as pets, but generally revert to their feral state if unfed. While not generally dangerous because of their small size and small mouths, they are scavengers by nature, only occasionally taking smaller live animals.

Gurth : A thick, domed shell covers these small reptiles, which is regularly used in the making of armors, often in overlapping plates. They rely solely on their shells for protection, which requires significant strength or a lot of patience to perforate, in their slow search for the various vegetation upon which they feed.

Skeet : Normally feeding on tough vegetation and occasionally digging up tubers and the like, skeet are tough-skinned reptiles with a central strip of relatively flexible, yet protective, chitin. They have been known to scavenge, as do almost all Zalanthan beasts (and even a few Zalanthan plants).

And a few other animals that appear to have no decent means of delivering solid or, god forbid, wounding attacks on an armored human often do so to merchants, magicker, pick pockets, burglars, and assassins. Sure, I can buy it if a merchant can't actually kill a jozhal and has to pack up and go home. But there's no way that something like a dog-sized turtle (without any sort of vicious mouth or claws) should be able to do any significant damage to a humanoid.

A deer-sized beast with horns should, of course, be able to tackle inexperienced to middling hunters. A chicken-sized lizard with a small mouth should not be able to kill a healthy, conscious human.