The Great Defense "Nerf"

[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.