Armageddon General Discussion Board

Because it seems like it's breaking off in a discussion in its own right.
Here we can lovely argue about the OP or not so OP nature of Rangers with out effecting the random in RAT.

Rangers do seem to enjoy a much higher level and broader selection of skills than other guilds.

I'd like to see other guilds get as much versatility rather than rangers lose theirs.

Zalanthan desert survival ain't no joke, those people designed to excel in it, they ain't a joke either. While there are a couple of classes I think could use some love, rangers are good at what they're supposed to do because it's hard to do what they do.

Quote from: Majikal on December 21, 2015, 06:03:41 PM
Zalanthan desert survival ain't no joke, those people designed to excel in it, they ain't a joke either. While there are a couple of classes I think could use some love, rangers are good at what they're supposed to do because it's hard to do what they do.

This is true, but being a pick-pocket, burglar, or assassin isn't easy. Crimcode adds an entire other level to the difficulty by itself, and when you factor in the lower skill caps on some pretty important skills it's unfortunate. I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again here, if I want my character to be able to assassinate someone, I'm not going to make an assassin, I'm going to make a ranger, because they're better at it.

Ehh I can't formulate my thoughts on Rangers I Feel adequately besides if they nerf them too much, it becomes a useless guild.

They're a super friendly to causal players, off peak players.

I feel with a ranger I can just enter the world and just be, I've got a nice little skill set for it.

All the other classes are gimped beyond usefulness (Burglar)
OR way over specialized to be fun (Warrior/Assassin).

I'd dare to say over specialization is a problem with most the guilds.   It feels like you get your one Gimmick and outside of the one Gimmick, codely you're useless. 

Maybe they are.  So what?

Compared to the other guilds out there, they really are. Buff city classes or nerf rangers and things'll be more balanced

Quote from: Patuk on December 21, 2015, 07:23:08 PM
Compared to the other guilds out there, they really are. Buff city classes or nerf rangers and things'll be more balanced

I'm personally on the Buff the City Classes Platform.  I think Rangers are the formula of what makes a good guild. 

Everyone one else is a victim to over specialization. 

I'd add a few extra toys to other guilds before I'd nerf rangers.  They're strong, but that's fine.

I agree with those who are saying the other classes should be given more utility in order to bring them up to the level of rangers. I haven't played much in the way of rangers but I do remember thinking that Arm felt less "gamey" when I was playing one, because my PC wasn't constantly having to make excuses for not being able to do this or that.

Also, to comment on the discussion that sparked this one, if you can roll up a noble that is guild ranger, you should be able to play a city-elf ranger.

I would honestly be fine if they rolled all off pickpocket, assassin, and burglar up into one. Assassins get a lot of what those two get, just at really low skill caps so they don't overshadow them. If assassins had burglar climb and pick, and pickpocket steal and sleight of hand, then they'd be close to rangers. The only thing at that point I think would be needed are the other two weapon skills, although I don't know if assassins have a lower weapon cap or not. I'd also like if scan was separated out into city and wilderness, because if the stealth skills are then detecting them should be as well.

Every class should be a lot more flexible like rangers are. Especially including warriors and merchants. Just from playing with them ingame and reading the helpfiles I've never wanted to play either one.

I'd honestly love to see almost every guild be able to do almost everything, with just your "specialty" determining the upper limit of where you can go with it or maybe how fast you learn things (warriors learn combat stuff a lot faster, et cetera). Our PCs are people. People can learn stuff! My PC might not be able to be the best football player ever, but she should be kick a football about without hurting herself!

EDIT: Also, not derailing, but everybody should get all weapon skills. Why can I only learn to use this particular thing and that particular thing even if I put the same effort into swinging and hitting things with both? That has like never made sense to me.

Of course they are overpowered comparatively, but the only thing they would need to be weaker at is city based things, as they are superior to the city based classes in combat and utitility.

Or just buff city based guilds. Burglar and pickpocket especially comes to mind, although assassin is still hard mode compared to ranger.

My ideas are thus:

Change pickpocket to mugger class and start it with sap that can reach master level. Also give it branched subdue.

Give burglar bludgeoning skill, branch scan from hide. Give it kick skill. Change the name to looter.

Give assassin branched archery from throw, up to advanced level. We will see more crossbow based assassinations this way. Which are badass.

Give warriors journeyman dsense.

This would give city based classes varied and interesting combat abilities.

I think most of the things rangers get make sense. The level of some of the things they get are a bit much in comparison to what others get at times. That said, I don't think rangers need to get nerfed but other classes definately need some love.

These aren't all my ideas but ideas I've certainly liked:

• Warriors are masters of all forms combat, they should become good enough to fight on a mount without needing a subguild ride.
• Assassin should branch the other weapons skills in order to better defend against them, and some of their skill levels should be adjusted. They should have the very best eyes in the game.
• Pickpocket should merge with burgalar and renamed thief, losing backstab, poison and throw but keeping sap (the thief subguild should be renamed pickpocket). They should have the best ears in the game.

However, I thought guilds were going to get looked at after sub-guilds. Not sure what the status is of the sub-guilds, there seemed to be changes coming but feels like that lost some steam.

See, I would never want to take throw from burglar, even if it merged with another guild. It's an important tool in their kit, I agree with backstab and poison though. As for weapon skills, I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I like that some classes only get certain types because that's thematic to the guild. If ranger were to only get to have two weapon skills, what do you all think they should be? This also makes warriors much better because they can have all the skills and the defense buffs that go with them.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 03:31:52 PM
The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

As the advocate for Physicians everywhere (and to a lesser extent the poor Apothecary Subguild): what if we capped poison/brew on Rangers at some level -- then a ranger who wanted to dabble in that stuff would have to get the Subguild or find a friend.

Quote from: Akariel on December 21, 2015, 08:29:06 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 03:31:52 PM
The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

I'd rather see dual wield get buffed and given only to warriors than see two-handed taken from rangers or given a low cap. I have a feeling it's so prevalent because dual wield was a ranger specialty in D&D and pretty famous because of Drizzt. I think if I had to hunt any dangerous creature I would take a long spear over a pair of daggers or swords any day.

Quote from: Akariel on December 21, 2015, 08:29:06 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 03:31:52 PM
The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

What I was trying to say here is that two-handed is out of line with dual-wield and maybe shield-use. And that if any class should get the more powerful combat style, it should be Warriors. I wasn't speaking froma  realism/roleplay standpoint at all. Wasn't trying to say that rangers shouldn't get two-handed even though that's how it sounded.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Akariel on December 21, 2015, 08:29:06 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 03:31:52 PM
The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

What I was trying to say here is that two-handed is out of line with dual-wield and maybe shield-use. And that if any class should get the more powerful combat style, it should be Warriors. I wasn't speaking froma  realism/roleplay standpoint at all. Wasn't trying to say that rangers shouldn't get two-handed even though that's how it sounded.

Ah see, I see dual wield as out of line with two-handed and shield+weapon as it seems much worse comparatively. Never do I think, oh this could be serious, better hold a dagger in my other hand.

While I love where rangers are in terms of ability, I'll admit the reason I play rangers more often than not is because when I start making another class: Warrior, burglar, assassin I tend to immediately be disuaded by their lack of utility or their gimped utility in the face of what I'm looking at when I got a progressed ranger.

I would like to see the utility skills on some of those other classes go higher, or simply have more utility in general. The pickpocket rework from what I've seen looks to be lots better, so much better I actually consider them playable personally now. Burglar/assassin have some utility skills that I think should go a bit higher.

I think rangers should keep the same broad selection of skills. Most of these are needed, or are very helpful for their basic concept, wasteland survival.

I do think ranger melee skills are capped too high. Their weapon skills match a warrior's weapon skills. (Unless that's changed since warriors got buffed guarding.) That's like having another guild match a ranger's ability to use a bow, skin an animal, or navigate storms. I'm fine with rangers being very capable, but I don't like that they are as good.
Warriors -can- branch advanced weapon skills, but that doesn't happen often at all. Rangers and warriors both get stuck at roughly the same level of weapon skill, for most characters.

Assassins get shafted in a lot of ways. I would like to see the skill caps of the skills related to reaching their target raised.
Their skills related to actually doing the killing are just fine, but their climb/hunt/scan/pick aren't.

I also like the idea of merging the buglar and peekpocket, but I haven't played one in ages. I don't know what the "new" pickpocket is like.

Quote from: lostinspace on December 21, 2015, 10:06:14 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Akariel on December 21, 2015, 08:29:06 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 21, 2015, 03:31:52 PM
The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

What I was trying to say here is that two-handed is out of line with dual-wield and maybe shield-use. And that if any class should get the more powerful combat style, it should be Warriors. I wasn't speaking froma  realism/roleplay standpoint at all. Wasn't trying to say that rangers shouldn't get two-handed even though that's how it sounded.

Ah see, I see dual wield as out of line with two-handed and shield+weapon as it seems much worse comparatively. Never do I think, oh this could be serious, better hold a dagger in my other hand.

Yeah, I agree. But I said maybe shield-use because it has some cool utilities that aren't readily apparent that makes it more desirable than dual-wield.

Quote from: Medivh on December 21, 2015, 10:24:55 PM
I do think ranger melee skills are capped too high. Their weapon skills match a warrior's weapon skills. That's like having another guild match a ranger's ability to use a bow, skin an animal, or navigate storms. I'm fine with rangers being very capable, but I don't like that they are as good.
Warriors -can- branch advanced weapon skills, but that doesn't happen often at all. Rangers and warriors both get stuck at roughly the same level of weapon skill, for most characters.

I don't think a Ranger can max any weapon skill. They can max some combat skills.

I could get behind a change that is nothing but putting rangers, assassins and pickpockets on the same playing field combat-wise. Basically, give them identical caps on parry, wield and weapon skills equal to what assassin gets now. Make each guild's branching pattern for those skills similar. It would be neat to have the non-warrior combat classes have rough parity with one another (not counting skills like archery, backstab and poisoning) rather than the ladder-like hierarchy we have now. And it gives us a way to tweak the ranger without messing with its skill portfolio which people are very vocal about not wanting to change.

I would not merge pickpocket and burglar. Burglar very much already has a place in the game and you see plenty of burglars around if you look for them. Pickpocket is almost good enough--I think it's a lot better than many players think. Burglar does not need to be buffed and pickpocket just needs a tweak. There's no need to merge them.

Rangers and assassins ARE on a par, w/regards to weapon skills, barring some change that gave rangers better weapons skills or assassins worse weapons skills in the last 4 years. And neither of the two are equal to a warrior. Though they are closer to that of a warrior with weapons skills, than they would be, say, a burglar. Again barring changes to their weapons/combat skills in the past few years, that I wasn't made to know of.

I can pretty much guarantee personally that anyone saying differently has never had the ability to see the fact based reality of where the guilds cap at in hard numbers, firsthand, without relying on it being a guess, an algorithm based assumption, or something similar. I have.

I think backstab would be better renamed to something like critical strike, if you want to take a path where guilds stay as they are.

If you want to subscribe to the combining stealth guilds (which I get), I'd round all 3 into 1. Essentially turning the mundane roles into: city survival, desert survival, combat, and creation, as the basic principles, of the guild. Yes, they'd all be pretty stacked with skills (especially if you gave warrior some extra toys, like poisoning with a low moderate cap, better scan, maybe their own unarmed skill so even with fists they'd be counted as armed, etc.), you'd have fewer choices, but a lot more variety for ideas and such within the realm of each.

Making pickpockets/burglars better at combat, or even nerfing rangers (which are a lot of people's favorite!), seems like promoting a race to the middle.  (But if pickpockets were to get any combat boost that was guild-appropriate, I'd say it should be disarm ... how else can you steal a wielded weapon?).  But I'd rather see further diversification of the guilds.

A great albeit controversial example of a guild-diversifying skill is ranger's wilderness quit.  It's fun, OOCly convenient, and makes sense to me -- you can keep that character out in the wild for extended periods.  I would honestly take a ranger with half the melee abilities as long as I got to keep wilderness quit.

What about city quit for burglars?  If anyone's able to find a nook or cranny to crash for the night, it's these guys.  Maybe put a restriction on it that they have to be hidden before they can quit.

Pickpockets feel like they should be about enhanced mobility in the city.  What if they had a hurry command that gave them a temporary movement-speed boost (best combined with sneak)?

Quote from: bardlyone on December 22, 2015, 01:14:32 AM
Rangers and assassins ARE on a par, w/regards to weapon skills

Not that I'm totally an expert, but at least in my experience this isn't even close to true, and at least from what I've read on these boards I think it has to do with assassins not having all of the weapon skills, which is something that bugs me. If you can fight I don't know why you can't learn how to fight with different weapons.

I'm not the most experienced in combat though because I find the skilling up of it incredibly boring.

Examining the viability and opportunities of the various main guilds is in future plans.

Rangers are OP in the desert. This is the only place they are OP. Seeing as how that is the entire focus of the Guild, I am fine with this.

Melee combat on Rangers is at best a joke, and at worst it's a last resort secondary "oh I just fucked up" measure.

Rangers are good at three things. Travelling, Hunting, and Strategic Desert Combat.

Travelling - I played a Merchant/Hunter AS a Ranger once, and had zero trouble doing it, so player experience can trump this feature of the Guild in reality. You know what player experience can't trump? Me getting my ass beat without landing a single hit against a Warrior in a fight who has 10% of my playtime on their PC.

Hunting - I played the same Merchant/Hunter above AS a Ranger. I hunted alone constantly. Same scenario. I found using my player skill made this surprisingly easy. I killed pretty much everything I would venture to kill as a Guild Ranger through archery. If you hunt using your melee skills on anything other than small game, in my opinion you are playing very risky as a Ranger. I still killed things like tregils and gimpka rats and skeet in melee with this Merchant. I used archery to hunt bigger things and regularly dropped carru/gortok/scrab/raptors....usually without ever losing a single drop of blood.

This Merchant was an old man named Takoda. My stats were shit because I started him old on purpose. I hunted alone all of the time. Killed things all of the time. Even went out and fought beside the Legion twice in the forest, and survived both times just due to my player experience. What finally got me? An assassin in the middle of a crowded tavern.

Strategic Desert Combat - Rangers are supposed to be able to dominate in this fashion. This is where they are supposed to be OP. I don't see an issue. If they aren't OP in this regard, the Guild isn't being used correctly.

If Rangers are OP, they are only OP in one regard....they can kill you in the desert.

They aren't any better at actually hunting, if you hunt intelligently as though you are afraid for your character's life and limbs, than a Merchant/Hunter combination.

Come to think of it....you can now play a Merchant/Outdoorsman....which would be leaps and bounds easier than when I did it.

What are we even complaining about?

I think rangers are pretty much ok the way they are.  They're not much good in melee until they get parry, which is very difficult to do.  Even then they can't go toe to toe with a good warrior, and they shouldn't be able to.  Archery is where they become truly lethal...and that's how it should be too. 

A maxed out ranger is a scary thing in the wilds.  But a maxed out anything combat should be a scary thing. 

Quote from: In Dreams on December 21, 2015, 07:42:04 PM

EDIT: Also, not derailing, but everybody should get all weapon skills. Why can I only learn to use this particular thing and that particular thing even if I put the same effort into swinging and hitting things with both? That has like never made sense to me.

Because your PC is a person. People in real life have limitations and things they are good at and things they will NEVER be good at.

This is true with everything. I will be never an artist. If I was a "PC" and there was an "Art Skill", I assure you that Art would not even be on my skills list. It wouldn't even be novice. You could put me through four years of art class and let me waste hundreds of dollars in art supplies and I would still have the artistic ability of Koko the Gorilla's mentally handicapped second inbred cousin. (I did take four years of art. I am not pulling your leg. I am a fucking moron when it comes to art and always will be no matter how much work I put into it. It is a touchy subject for me. Anyone who wants to give me shit can go fuck themselves. I got dem feelings.)

This is the same way for combat. I see people roll into my gym regularly who have what we call, "Awkward body economy.". They don't know how to move their own bodies. I can watch someone for two minutes hitting a bag and tell you immediately their boxing skill will always be Novice. They will never get any better. They simply lack the ability to move their bodies.

Why is this related? Because if I put a sword in that guy's hands....I guarantee you he would chop his own fucking leg off. He can't even punch a heavy bag without looking like he has lead for ass cheeks. (It is also worth noting that most of the time these people have no idea they have awkward body economy and no amount of explaining it to them will ever make them realize it. You will just have to watch them painfully and ineffectually fuck around for the next few weeks until they quit. This however, is an unrelated rant.)

That's a hard concept for a lot of people. You get older and if you are wise you realize that you will never be good at some things. You simply are not smart enough, coordinated enough, or strong enough. No amount of motivation or hard work is going to make some people better at some things. Why? Because some people just aren't meant to be good at them. They will always suck. They will suck until the day they die.

I don't see why our characters should be any different.

From a playability standpoint and forgetting everything else about RL...having set Guilds instead of a world of "everyone can do everything" makes people depend on each other. It makes people seek other people out because they NEED them, because they can't do it themselves. They can't even do a half-assed job of it themselves. They HAVE to have someone else for it....and that promotes things like the economy, the lore, and just in general player interaction and gameplay.

If rangers are overpowered it makes sense anyway. Most of the Known World is a dusty scrap of land which only the most hardened and well trained of individuals can navigate, let alone survive in. All other skills would be seen as secondary and lesser compared to that of survival skills, making the "survivalist" (or ranger) the most powerful of them all.

Of course, I don't think anyone would complain if the other mundane guilds got a little love by implementing new skills to reflect their specific talents.

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 22, 2015, 04:54:53 AM
Examining the viability and opportunities of the various main guilds is in future plans.

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/987/437/0d9.gif)
We Did It, GDB.

It's been in plans for a while, actually.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 22, 2015, 10:57:55 AM
It's been in plans for a while, actually.

(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110513151242/vidyavidya/images/2/2d/Nofun_robot.jpg)

Those of you who talk about combining all three city crime guilds into one...

All I will say is the amount of crying will increase exponentially when I, on a whim, can effectively kill you anywhere you go, be it behind closed door, via spice planting or huge backstab or sudden sap.  Then I can turn around and manipulate your friend's inventory, poison all of your enemy's blades without fear, and never worry about the crime as I dance on rooftops and laugh at the PC soldiers trying to catch me.  Even combining just pickpocket and burglar...that's just...a city guild that is -mind-bogglingly- powerful.

You're talking about making a guild that -requires- a mage to put a stop to.  This is not a 'versatile guild', this is a ranger x5, since the city is where the majority of people are at all times.

Also...rangers -are- fine.  Pickpockets are fine, if you're wanting a character who can do inventory manipulation and who can defend themselves better than most people give credit for, -and- kill if they get the jump on someone.  Assassins are fine if you're playing a city ranger, where their skills are actually remarkably comparable to each other.  Burglars are fine, if you're wanting a character who can contribute to just about any situation except for combat.  Which they can still contribute to, but get left behind by other long-lived PC's.  The only 'non-viable guild' to me is Warrior, not because they're -weak-, but because they're -boring- to me.  All their skill support is in like...2% of their playtime (likely less), which is not my style.

Quote from: Desertman on December 22, 2015, 10:12:10 AM
This is the same way for combat. I see people roll into my gym regularly who have what we call, "Awkward body economy.". They don't know how to move their own bodies. I can watch someone for two minutes hitting a bag and tell you immediately their boxing skill will always be Novice. They will never get any better. They simply lack the ability to move their bodies.

Okay! So! Find someone who is an absolute pro at, say, using a club. This person can take a club and totally take out a baby seal of considerable size with one swing of even a club of meager viciousness. This same person can go fishing or hunting in their back yard with a spear and have enough food to feed their family for a week in a couple hours, because they are wow, really super impressive with a spear.

This same person cannot ever, even if they spend ten years doing it, learn how to, say, swing a sword well enough to hit pretty much anything that moves? If they took aim at a stick of butter on the kitchen counter they'd smash their microwave, chop their kid's head off, and a lot of precious china before they ever managed to slice buttery goodness?

Sorry, you can try your very best to explain that away, but we both know you'd just be rationalising and covering up for an arbitrary code limitation that's both silly on its own and one of the reasons rangers are better than everyone else: they can do everything!

Giving all weapon skills to all combative types would also go a long way towards squishing the fact that someone's weapon choices make their guild pretty obvious at all times.

Anyone who's tried to stop a maxed out burglar who sneaks and hides everywhere knows what a pain in the ass it is.

That's why I feel scan should be location agnostic and warriors should get some ability.  Or there should be a mechanism to prevent "Le hide in empty apartment".  Like perhaps you can't insta scan some one out or don't have scan.  But a search command with a serious delay could route out a hidden elf in the bar full of humans, if they weren't smart enough to sneak out there.

But I could rant on why Stealth skills are like magic some days.  Still doesn't change my opinion that Burglar/PickPocket should be the same damn guild just good at theft.  Separating the two just seems like needless over specialization that in no way reflects a realistic representation of some one who lived such a life.

Rather than giving everyone all weapon skills, I'd be okay with people being able to choose their weapon skills (i.e. Burglars get a prompt in creation that says 'choose two').  Make backstab a passive critical strike skill that applies to all weapons with different damage modifiers for each type, and a growing % chance to critical hit out of stealth.  Something like that.  The bit with backstab/critical strike may be unnecessary, but I was thinking purely along the lines of no longer being required to use daggers as an assassin, though they'd definitely work better.

However, while I disagree with Desertman's 'awkward body economy' argument (Really dude?  No amount of training ever to get over what is essentially poor dexterity?  Naaaaah, some people take longer for certain, but everyone improve movements and ability), I do agree that not every character should just be able to pick up anything and get -proficient- with it, based purely off of not realism, but game design.  There are large deals that come with weapon skills just being on your skill list.  Even at novice, they're giving you more boons holding that weapon than I think you realize.  A person with slashing at novice, and a person without weapon skills but high offense and defense, those sort of boons of the skill come to be seen rather well.  The reason for not everyone having all of them is that it denotes that everyone has some sort of skill with everything, where the majority of Zalanthas, PC's included, doesn't really have a reason to think ahead to using those tools in combat.  They have what they use.  They use what they have.  That's that.

You can argue 'Anyone can learn it, though', but that's the way every skill in the game is, and undermines the entire skill system in place, demanding an overhaul on its entirety.  Applying that logic to some skills and not others is a faulty way of sticking to the inline code and maintaining the integrity of how the code and world act in tandem.  You can argue they might be preparing for a situation where they don't have their weapon, which is more of the same...we don't take into account that people prepare for wilderness survival because they are a city guild.  Likewise, we do not take into account that they may train enough to have novice proficiency in all weapons simply by existing.

I'm okay with warriors and rangers being the only ones with all four.  But I do agree with the 'boxed in' feel other guilds as far as weapons go, and am okay with the idea that they could choose different styles for themselves.  Who says that burglar doesn't like clubbing people in their house?  Not me!

Quote from: hopeandsorrow on December 22, 2015, 01:08:05 PM
That's why I feel scan should be location agnostic and warriors should get some ability.  Or there should be a mechanism to prevent "Le hide in empty apartment".  Like perhaps you can't insta scan some one out or don't have scan.  But a search command with a serious delay could route out a hidden elf in the bar full of humans, if they weren't smart enough to sneak out there.

But I could rant on why Stealth skills are like magic some days.  Still doesn't change my opinion that Burglar/PickPocket should be the same damn guild just good at theft.  Separating the two just seems like needless over specialization that in no way reflects a realistic representation of some one who lived such a life.

Still very stalwart disagreement on my part, knowing how powerful each of those classes actually gets.  It's not 'needless overspecialization', it's needed separation.  Combining their skills results in all elements of crime being performed by one class, very well.  There wouldn't even be a need to be an assassin anymore.  That other one can do -everything-.  Pickpockets are actually pretty decent in combat, to the point that they can keep up with most other classes into the mid-length character (not with warriors.  Starting with parry rather than branching it is a big boon).

I'm uncertain.  Have you guys played long lived characters of these classes?  I have not played a pickpocket in some time, but I have played -with- pickpockets.  The things each class does are nothing short of amazing.  Combining any two is bad.  Class reform, in my opinion, is more about making hybrids between the existing ones, rather than nullifying/combining any of them.

As far as representation of anyone who lived such a life...pickpocket is the guy up on stage taking things while people watch them, and not being caught.  Burglars are the guys who can often pull off lifts in a crowd, but still have to run away now and again.  Likewise, burglars are the guys in movies who scale walls, break safes and etc.  No one else really does it to that degree, but assassins learn some of those basics to get into positions they need.

I dunno, that feels very well formulated to me, and I feel that this discussion is more based off of people who have tried a couple times, grazed the surface, but not gotten -deep- into those character roles.  Each one really is -incredibly good- at what they do.

I don't think anyone would argue that burglars aren't good at burgling and that warriors aren't good at fighting melee. What people are saying is only having one specific thing to be good at can get old pretty quick. Just because they're good at what they do doesn't mean they couldn't have more utility to be useful in more situations.

An actual trap skill, or caltrops, or flash bangs, or bashing doors or a "raise shield east" command that allows you to absorb most of the arrows while sacraficing durability on the shield quickly, or the ability for assassins to flee from a fight unnoticed. Literally a million cool suggestions have been made over the years for neat skills that might make mundane characters interesting and dynamic.

Things that aren't just "Youre a warrior and you're the best at melee, oh and we're going to give you max parry on top of that, and advanced weapons on top of that, and these combat skills on top of that and they're all going to make you even better at something you were already better at. Yay."

Shields already give a tremendous boost to defense against archery.  Huge.

The problem with that is that you're not asking for class revisions.  You're asking for a skill overhaul, and a change the way skills and classes work altogether.  That's not what the rest of this discussion is based around.  So while what you're asking about makes sense, and is not a lot of work, a lot of the other discussion that I'm replying to is not necessarily too much work, but doesn't make sense. (Edit for clarification: Making each class able to do more than a specialization is what this is talking about.  In a class-based system, specialization is the name of the game, and to step away from specialization requires a new conceptual redesign of balance, how skills and maxes are determined, and etc.  Subguilds serve this purpose pretty well, and are being worked on, so maybe this is the thing to keep an eye on.)

Not to mention...those ideas you're suggesting there don't change what your argument is.  That's further specialization in their area, which is also fine, but doesn't lead to any divergence from what you say gets old.  (Edit for clarifiation:  Here I'm not talking about the same thing as above.  Here I'm talking about the various skill ideas over the years, and how they, too, are oriented around the specialization that you said we want to move away from.)

Quote from: Armaddict on December 22, 2015, 01:51:15 PM
what you say gets old.

i'll fite you bro  ;)

I know shield gives defense to archery. Having maxed the skill many times, it's not tremendous, but that may due to it being based on more things than shield use, and possibly the archers skill as well, so maybe I've been unlucky.

Also, I wouldn't call bashing a door for a warrior further specialization. Some of the ideas may be a little bit like that (stealth escape for assassins) but that's beside the point. There are more ideas out there. Surely better ones, that was all off the top of my head.

As for "class revision" vs "skill overhall". Both in the same wheelhouse if you ask me. It's not like it would have to be a whole list of new skills. 1-2 further branched skill for any one of these classes that makes sense for their guild would be all it takes to make them more dynamic and interesting. Like Rangers currently are.

For the record, RGS, I am not against further improvement of the classes, or new skills.

But some things in this discussion went to the point where they were alarming me.  Combining pickpocket and burglar really is just plain dangerous, so far as classes are concerned, where I think that an extended subguild on either one fixes the thing people say is the problem.

And you took that quote completely out of context!  I meant -you- said it gets old, not that what you're saying gets old!

QuoteAs for "class revision" vs "skill overhall". Both in the same wheelhouse if you ask me.

I edited the previous post while you were posting.  Does my edit explain why I think that's different?

With extended subguilds, Rangers seem like they can be a jack of all trades that's 90% as good at everything as another class.  Maybe thst alone is ok, but the fact that they're also the BEST at so many things on top of that which feels imbalanced compared to the city guilds.

Give all city stealth characters dual stealth and city quit.

Quote from: Armaddict on December 22, 2015, 02:14:24 PM
For the record, RGS, I am not against further improvement of the classes, or new skills.

But some things in this discussion went to the point where they were alarming me.  Combining pickpocket and burglar really is just plain dangerous, so far as classes are concerned, where I think that an extended subguild on either one fixes the thing people say is the problem.

You can only use extended sub-guilds so often, one bad stroke of luck and its all for not.

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't play those classes because they're only ever going to be good at ONE thing.  No matter how awesome at RP you are, your skill sheet will limit you.  It doesn't help that in my experience most plots/conflicts/happenings, rarely require that one thing. So you're either tavern sitting spinning your wheels or just coming along to be dead weight.

If I compared them to Rangers.  Rangers can be hunters, treasure hunters, herbalists, desert guides, assassins, and soldiers.  Perhaps with various degrees of proficiency, but no other class has that many options.  I Feel they should.  I Feel warriors should be more than sacks of unperceptive meat with weapons attached.  I Believe that the stealth triangle needs to at lest share among it self the various skills it has, to a degree a Burglar can claim proficiency in something other than the one Gimmick of opening locks, or picking pockets, or stabbing people.

My experience, short of a spec app or extended sub-guild. You don't see Burglar's being much use out of burglary.  Or Pick Pockets being much use but as inventory specialists, or Assassins can claim the level of proficiency that warriors/rangers can with soldiering.

Outside of Social focused roles and spec apps, they're a very limited skill sheet.

I just want the other mundanes, the stealthy guys especially to enjoy the range of employment/varied skills that Rangers enjoy.  

Hell Rangers are the only guild that their job description isn't their guild name.

Assassin/outdoorsman is just as viable.  Perhaps moreso, since city stealth as a base is more valuable than desert stealth as a base (this may not make a difference, but in my experience it seems to, but at the very least, they are equivalent).

Rangers are the best at exactly two things, which is archery and riding animals.  Well, and skinning, if you want to count that.  Hunt is roughly equivalent to assassins, scan is roughly equivalent to assassins, poison is less than assassins.  Rangers are only very marginally better than assassins at combat, if at all, their only advantage being they can choose a weapon type.  They are not best at guarding or rescuing.  They are not capable of locking anything down without use of poisons (as warriors, assassins, and even pickpockets are).  They are not best at climbing, or listening.

Do they have a good skillset?  Yes.  Are they versatile?  Yes.  They are accomplished scouts for the military, but throw them into the city and they're not so hot.  I've gone at rangers with complete confidence with burglars.  They are the ultimate guild if your character wants to spend a good amount of time out of doors, or in a versatile role in a military clan, rather than a frontline role in a military clan.

Are there bound to be a lot of them?  Yes.  I'm okay with that, particularly with them -not- being anywhere near the top of the food chain in the city, but getting a good deal higher -if- they supplement with a city-based subguild.  Assassins are top of the food chain IN the city, nowhere near outside the city, but can go up a great deal by supplementing with wilderness based subguilds.  Warriors are consistent in both places.

This is normal.

Quote from: In Dreams on December 22, 2015, 12:44:28 PM

Quote from: Desertman on December 22, 2015, 10:12:10 AM
This is the same way for combat. I see people roll into my gym regularly who have what we call, "Awkward body economy.". They don't know how to move their own bodies. I can watch someone for two minutes hitting a bag and tell you immediately their boxing skill will always be Novice. They will never get any better. They simply lack the ability to move their bodies.

Okay! So! Find someone who is an absolute pro at, say, using a club. This person can take a club and totally take out a baby seal of considerable size with one swing of even a club of meager viciousness. This same person can go fishing or hunting in their back yard with a spear and have enough food to feed their family for a week in a couple hours, because they are wow, really super impressive with a spear.

This same person cannot ever, even if they spend ten years doing it, learn how to, say, swing a sword well enough to hit pretty much anything that moves? If they took aim at a stick of butter on the kitchen counter they'd smash their microwave, chop their kid's head off, and a lot of precious china before they ever managed to slice buttery goodness?

Sorry, you can try your very best to explain that away, but we both know you'd just be rationalising and covering up for an arbitrary code limitation that's both silly on its own and one of the reasons rangers are better than everyone else: they can do everything!

Giving all weapon skills to all combative types would also go a long way towards squishing the fact that someone's weapon choices make their guild pretty obvious at all times.

Demian Maia - The real life walking manifestation of exactly what you are describing. He is a monster (one of THE best in the world, if not still the best) in a single aspect of combat but is a retarded one-legged blind monkey in every other aspect even after years of professional training from some of the best in the world.

These guys exist. They are amazing athletes who are extraordinarily (literally the best in the world) gifted in one single thing....but it does not and will never translate for them into any meaningful skill in any other related art form, ever....they simply lack the ability.  

(http://www.insidemma.com.au/images/editorial/Demian_Maia.jpg)

Just watching the guy move is awkward as shit. Watching him on the ground is like beholding the Holy Grail of death. It's black and white, night and day. Interesting really.

QuoteIf I compared them to Rangers.  Rangers can be hunters, treasure hunters, herbalists, desert guides, assassins, and soldiers.  Perhaps with various degrees of proficiency, but no other class has that many options.  I Feel they should.  I Feel warriors should be more than sacks of unperceptive meat with weapons attached.  I Believe that the stealth triangle needs to at lest share among it self the various skills it has, to a degree a Burglar can claim proficiency in something other than the one Gimmick of opening locks, or picking pockets, or stabbing people.

My experience, short of a spec app or extended sub-guild. You don't see Burglar's being much use out of burglary.  Or Pick Pockets being much use but as inventory specialists, or Assassins can claim the level of proficiency that warriors/rangers can with soldiering.

Rangers can be all those things, because all those things have a large portion of time outdoors.  What you're talking about is being outdoors, not a class.  That class just happens to be the one tailored to things outside the city.

Inside the city is where specialization is key.  So again, that makes sense to me.  Inside the city, a ranger maintains employability just because of the number of clans that have interests outside the city.  However, for those who have interests within the city, it is not a ranger that they generally look for, unless someone connected to that plot happens to know of a ranger who chose those subguilds and has been making a name for themself in that way.

Assassins are city rangers.  Almost straight up, across the board.  Burglars are more versatile than assassins are, but combat-lite.  Pickpockets are capable of doing what either of the other two can do, not as well, but with the added bonus of being able to acquire and manipulate to the max.  If you play PC's who -never- leave the city, which I do, there is literally -no- reason to choose ranger.

Buff city elves.

Assassins are city rangers with two less weapon skills, mediocre climbing, worse parry, less ranged efficacy, but better stealth.

Quote from: lostinspace on December 22, 2015, 03:03:49 PM
Assassins are city rangers with two less weapon skills, mediocre climbing, worse parry, less ranged efficacy, but better stealth.

Weapon skills are less of an issue since they have backstab, which grants them more killing power than a ranger within the city.  Mediocre climbing in a place where climbing is not essential to survival, and where long drops are rare where climbs are more secure.  Parry is roughly equivalent and branched sooner, generally.  Much better stealth indeed.

Edit:  Oh.  And ranged efficacy.  Long range in the city is best countered with 'moving'.  Not behind a door.  Just moving.  Where the desert is open spaces where two people can move parallel to each other for long distances, you can often duck completely out of a ranged attack by moving one room, so that they have to move within one room of you.  Which is where throw is advantageous over archery.  Which makes it great for assassins.

If weapon skills aren't a big issue then why not let assassin have all 4? Let them chose between backstab and chopping fools.
Climb is just a sore spot for assassins, because I'm pretty sure the subguilds are better at climbing than them. Maybe it's true that climbing is easier in the city, but I know when soldiers are chasing me I definitely don't want to slip on that 2 room climb.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have assassins get the same cap on dualwield and parry as rangers.
Yes, better stealth.
Do rangers not also get throw of a similar skill level?

I don't think Rangers need to be tuned down, but I do think that pound for pound the ranger is better and would like for the other guilds to get bumped into line.

Quote from: Armaddict on December 22, 2015, 02:43:45 PM
Rangers are the best at exactly two things, which is archery and riding animals.  Well, and skinning, if you want to count that.  Hunt is roughly equivalent to assassins, scan is roughly equivalent to assassins, poison is less than assassins.  Rangers are only very marginally better than assassins at combat, if at all, their only advantage being they can choose a weapon type.  They are not best at guarding or rescuing.  They are not capable of locking anything down without use of poisons (as warriors, assassins, and even pickpockets are).  They are not best at climbing, or listening.

I suppose only the staff know for sure, but I was under the impression that they are the best at climbing, listening, bandaging, foraging, brewing.   If they aren't, then who is?!

Quote from: wizturbo on December 22, 2015, 04:51:40 PM

Quote from: Armaddict on December 22, 2015, 02:43:45 PM
Rangers are the best at exactly two things, which is archery and riding animals.  Well, and skinning, if you want to count that.  Hunt is roughly equivalent to assassins, scan is roughly equivalent to assassins, poison is less than assassins.  Rangers are only very marginally better than assassins at combat, if at all, their only advantage being they can choose a weapon type.  They are not best at guarding or rescuing.  They are not capable of locking anything down without use of poisons (as warriors, assassins, and even pickpockets are).  They are not best at climbing, or listening.

I suppose only the staff know for sure, but I was under the impression that they are the best at climbing, listening, bandaging, foraging, brewing.   If they aren't, then who is?!

RUkkians are the best at foraging if I'm correct.

I think Burglar is tied with them for climbing and better at listening. Assassin is tied for brewing I believe. I am pretty sure they are the best at archery, and the best guild at riding although there is an alternative. I have no idea about bandaging but I wouldn't doubt they are the best.

Edit: I think he's right, Rukkians are better at foraging.

Bandaging is very possible, but from what I've observed, rarely used (hence discussions on how to make it better so people would actually use it).

Climbing is burglars.  Listening is burglars I think.  Foraging...I'm actually not sure, as far as mundanes go.  Brewing?  ::)

Granted.  This is based off older information, but I've seen nothing to indicate its changed, and the 'master' levels I've reached with PC's since skills became visible are consistent with the other numbers I've seen.  If these are the things you're upset about, you're talking about relatively minor parts of the game aside from listening (which those who get it are all pretty good at it, making it almost moot), and arguably foraging.

Those are hardly enough to justify an uproar demanding rebalancing of all classes because ranger is too OP.  Again, I argue that it has more to do with people wanting to be able to go outside the city confidently than anything else, and there not being multiple outdoor classes the way there are multiple city classes (needfully so).

You're right, they are minor things, but there are lots of them. In terms of the skills they have, rangers are pretty solidly 2nd, 1st, or tied for one of those. The only exception I think being the sneak and hide because the city 3 have a wonky mix of those that throws assassin into 3rd. And in terms of raw number of skills they have a lot of them. I think they need most of them, but not all, I don't know why rangers are so good at throwing when they have archery, and I don't know why they're the only non-warrior guild with all 4 weapon skills. There's nothing wrong with it, but I'd like to see assassin raised to match them in some of these areas.

Quote from: Armaddict on December 22, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
Those are hardly enough to justify an uproar demanding rebalancing of all classes because ranger is too OP.  Again, I argue that it has more to do with people wanting to be able to go outside the city confidently than anything else, and there not being multiple outdoor classes the way there are multiple city classes (needfully so).

There's no uproar.  No demands.  And no need to rebalance everything...  I just think Rangers should get tuned down slightly.  Reduce their weapon skill cap.  Or tune down some of their non-combat skills so they're more jack of all trades instead of king or queen of all trades.

Sure, I suppose you could go the other route of buffing all the other guilds to be on par with Ranger...  Maybe that would be more fun?  I don't know.  But it would certainly be a lot more work, and could unbalance a significant part of the game dynamic.  Of course, the status quo isn't exactly "bad" so maybe nothing needs to be changed at all. 

Sorry.  I exaggerate, I call it an uproar because it started as casual mention and a bunch of people clamored to join in on it.

But just to reiterate.  I'm fine with lots of rangers.  Makes sense.  People who go outside the city gravitate towards two classes.  I only came in because uh...trying to make the city classes combine out of comparison to the outdoor ranger is...not bueno.  Assassins equivocate well.  The other two are not city rangers, they are their own thing (and very good at their things, too.)  If incentive is needed to play a burglar or pickpocket, commit to not leaving the gates, and being a non-combative character first.

Quote from: Armaddict on December 22, 2015, 05:42:41 PM
Sorry.  I exaggerate, I call it an uproar because it started as casual mention and a bunch of people clamored to join in on it.

To be fair, the nerf was a causal mention and I turned the defense of Rangers into an uproar.

Mostly I <3 rangers something fierce.

I really wish the other classes had the Range of options they did.  Currently from my perspective, they don't. Why I generally don't care to play them.  A varied skill list with something beyond their one gimmick would make them more viable from my stand point.  With out having to rely on a extended sub-guild.

Quote from: wizturbo on December 22, 2015, 05:35:37 PM
Sure, I suppose you could go the other route of buffing all the other guilds to be on par with Ranger...  Maybe that would be more fun?  I don't know.  But it would certainly be a lot more work, and could unbalance a significant part of the game dynamic.  Of course, the status quo isn't exactly "bad" so maybe nothing needs to be changed at all.  

This is missing the point completely. At least with me.

The point is, Ranger is fun! It's flexible, strong, gives you tons of roleplay opportunities! They can useful in the city, but they obviously are outside too. They're good with combat and they can craft things. With the right choice of subguild and enough time they could be just about anything you wanted them to and still be fun doing other things also if your PC took the time to learn other fields! And I don't think that should be changed at all. They're dynamic and fun and full and versatile.

It's not about 'balance'. I just want more guilds like ranger. That's how every guild should be.

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 22, 2015, 04:54:53 AM
Examining the viability and opportunities of the various main guilds is in future plans.

DO NOT mess with my Rangers diggity...or I will take your hair. parietal bone.

(http://www.daviddarling.info/images/parietal_bone.jpg)

Quote from: In Dreams on December 22, 2015, 07:35:19 PM

Quote from: wizturbo on December 22, 2015, 05:35:37 PM
Sure, I suppose you could go the other route of buffing all the other guilds to be on par with Ranger...  Maybe that would be more fun?  I don't know.  But it would certainly be a lot more work, and could unbalance a significant part of the game dynamic.  Of course, the status quo isn't exactly "bad" so maybe nothing needs to be changed at all.  

This is missing the point completely. At least with me.

The point is, Ranger is fun! It's flexible, strong, gives you tons of roleplay opportunities! They can useful in the city, but they obviously are outside too. They're good with combat and they can craft things. With the right choice of subguild and enough time they could be just about anything you wanted them to and still be fun doing other things also if your PC took the time to learn other fields! And I don't think that should be changed at all. They're dynamic and fun and full and versatile.

It's not about 'balance'. I just want more guilds like ranger. That's how every guild should be.

If ranger has everything you want, combined with the right subguild, why not just always play ranger with the right subguild?

I play other guilds because they are NOT like ranger. I love rangers - my favorite mundane guild, and I very rarely play any other mundane guild. That's because it's exactly as you say - fun, useful inside the city, though designed for outside the city. But - they can't mastercraft anything. They wouldn't know a bargain if a templar forced one on them. There are many weapon skills they will never learn at all - let alone be any good with. They can't pick locks. In fact, there are a lot of things they can't do at all.

But the things they can do make them an incredibly awesome utility guild, and I love utility guilds. That's why I also prefer rukkians and whirans to krathis or drovians. And so, when I want to play a mage, I will usually pick a rukkian or (special app) a whiran.

In short: if you want a variety of utility skills, pick a ranger. That's what they're best at. If you want a masterfully powerful bashing-kicking-wrestling beast (that no one will spar with), pick a half-giant or mul warrior. If you want to make beautiful things and some day design your own fashions AND armor with coordinating jewelry, select a merchant.

Each guild excels at something each other guild does not excel at. Variety, rather than any one specific category of skills, is the ranger's forte.

Do you guys really not believe more skills could be added to the other classes to make them more fun and diverse, without stepping over the bounds of their niche?

edited to be more pc

I think warriors would benefit from even a middling scan to supplement their guard ability. Nothing to stop the ultimate assassin, but enough to catch the typical runt trying to pick a charge's pocket.

Quote from: Norcal on December 22, 2015, 07:38:06 PM

Quote from: Mordiggian on December 22, 2015, 04:54:53 AM
Examining the viability and opportunities of the various main guilds is in future plans.

DO NOT mess with my Rangers diggity...or I will take your hair. parietal bone.

(http://www.daviddarling.info/images/parietal_bone.jpg)

It's not a project I'm very involved in and it's a ways off so I'm not going to talk much about it but none of our internal discussions have revolved around ideas like nerfing rangers, and I personally prefer to not look at guild viability like class balance in an MMORPG because we aren't an MMORPG and our guilds don't really function as an effective analog to a traditional RPG class system. As a result, I like to avoid 'buff' and 'nerf' because they imply that we're trying to balance guilds for Warsong Gulch or arena queues, which isn't really true.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 23, 2015, 12:44:19 AM
Do you guys really not believe more skills could be added to the other classes to make them more fun and diverse, without stepping over the bounds of their niche?

Use your fucking imagination.

There are some things we can do to make other guilds more interesting to play. Adding new skills is a tricky one, especially when it comes to combat skills.

I think the addition of extended subguilds to the character generation process will go a ways toward addressing this problem to some degree. (Not to the exclusion of other changes, before anyone misquotes me somewhere.)

Rangers become really good fighters. The only thing that beats them in a straight out fight is warrior. Mostly due to disarm or advanced weapon skills. Mounted combat is OP however and alot of times this is how you'll be fighting.

They can [redacted].

They can forage food and water. Skin. [redacted] in case you aren't loaded with money.

Archery, [redacted] later on because why the hell not.

Mix in the rest of their survival skills,bandage, [redacted], guard...yeah sure they might not the best but still very good. Its not hard to see why they are so popular, especially how strong they get with just about any sub-guild.


Agian, when you compare their versatility to just about any other class you have to admit there is room for at least a little bit of improvement in other classes.

Hey, let's try not to start talking about the guild system's skill tree and what branches in which class in such explicit terms, even if the classes are 0 karma mundane ones.

Well you left guard.

And took out the things mentioned in the helpfile.

QuoteRanger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat. 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. Rangers are also often able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds, and have a well-known rapport with animals, and can ride beasts of burden from the beginning.

Not to mention all the things I've mentioned have been expicitly stated in other post already, but whatever...

City quit is a cool idea.

Quote from: Dresan on December 23, 2015, 02:06:57 AM
Well you left guard.

And took out the things mentioned in the helpfile.

QuoteRanger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat. 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. Rangers are also often able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds, and have a well-known rapport with animals, and can ride beasts of burden from the beginning.

Not to mention all the things I've mentioned have been expicitly stated in other post already, but whatever...

Emphasis on explicit.

The helpfiles leave some stuff to the imagination on purpose instead of just saying: This guild gets these skills.

I know it's a fuzzy line to tow. Nothing personal against you Dresan, you're just the first post I saw.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 23, 2015, 12:44:19 AM
Do you guys really not believe more skills could be added to the other classes to make them more fun and diverse, without stepping over the bounds of their niche?

edited to be more pc

I just don't think it's necessary when we have subguilds and extended subguilds. That's what they're for - to make characters more fun and diverse.

Subguilds, with a few exceptions, kind of suck, but as long as they're usable it's fine. Extended subguilds are somewhat less suck to pretty damn amazing, depending WHICH extended subguild you use with which guild. Even the suck extended subs, however, can change the game for you in a critical moment, if you're lucky. Normal subguilds, most can do the same, if VERY lucky. Not complaining about how it is, I just like the idea of being pretty spiffy at more than one thing.

The only good subguild is Thug and Bard and I refuse to believe otherwise.


...
And scavenger.
Thats it.

Quote from: Jihelu on December 23, 2015, 11:26:37 AM
The only good subguild is Thug and Bard and I refuse to believe otherwise.


...
And scavenger.
Thats it.

Wait wait wait....

How is Hunter not on the list?
How is Thief not on the list?

The only good subguild is GENERAL CRAFTloooool

Quote from: Lizzie on December 23, 2015, 08:40:27 AM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 23, 2015, 12:44:19 AM
Do you guys really not believe more skills could be added to the other classes to make them more fun and diverse, without stepping over the bounds of their niche?

edited to be more pc

I just don't think it's necessary when we have subguilds and extended subguilds. That's what they're for - to make characters more fun and diverse.

Uhh. all those subguilds and extended subguilds do is make the guilds more like each-other, not more diverse.

Quote from: hopeandsorrow on December 23, 2015, 11:37:35 AM

Quote from: Jihelu on December 23, 2015, 11:26:37 AM
The only good subguild is Thug and Bard and I refuse to believe otherwise.


...
And scavenger.
Thats it.

Wait wait wait....

How is Hunter not on the list?
How is Thief not on the list?

Because warrior already gets archery and skinning so hunter is trash.
And if you pick thief then you aren't an elf or pickpocket so you are playing the game wrong.

Extended subguilds are a bandage, not a solution. I understand working Ext. Subguilds into normal character creation is coming (Soon), but as it is now, it's not a livable avenue of a solution. Three times every year, when the average character turnover is.... much faster than that. If I have one karma, I should be able to pick master chef for every character I want: and three for the others, as it stands.

That's how it's going to be one day (Soon) but until then, rangers are going to stay the most versatile option.

Quote from: Jihelu on December 23, 2015, 12:03:01 PM

Quote from: hopeandsorrow on December 23, 2015, 11:37:35 AM

Quote from: Jihelu on December 23, 2015, 11:26:37 AM
The only good subguild is Thug and Bard and I refuse to believe otherwise.


...
And scavenger.
Thats it.

Wait wait wait....

How is Hunter not on the list?
How is Thief not on the list?

Because warrior already gets archery and skinning so hunter is trash.
And if you pick thief then you aren't an elf or pickpocket so you are playing the game wrong.

Assassin/Hunter
Ranger/Thief

Dats why.

There are plenty of decent options for guild and subguild/extended subguild combinations, depending on what you want to do with your character.
It seems though, that half of you just want things to be your way so you can come in and WIN ARMAGEDDON!  
And if you can't have a one day warrior that's pwning noobs -and- picking locks -and- making instruments -and- speaking fluent tatlum while you set up camp in the wilderness 'cause you wanna ranger too...then you just aren't happy and everything is broken.

I've known great 'outdoor' characters who weren't rangers.
I've known very effective/accomplished killers, that weren't assassins or maxed rangers.

Before I noticed -those- things about them though, I noticed what great RPers they were.

And they're all dead now, because Armageddon isn't for winning, it's for telling a story with all the other nerds who are telling their story at the same time.

Give merchants brew, branched from, I don't know, floristry. Seriously.

If merchants get brew from floristry (a stretch, if you ask me) then everyone with brew should get floristry. 
So all those rangers in the wild and the cold-hearted killers of the Known can make pretty-pretty perfumes.

*ponders*

Can you apply perfume to a dead body?

New idea: Create an uber-assassin who uses various perfumes on the bodies, as her calling card.  I'm claiming this idea.  No one steal it, if you do I'll come after you. (Hopefully with my burglar-hunter-masterchef-apothecary-linguist-who-makes-instruments-on-the-side...just because)

Quote from: manipura on December 23, 2015, 01:16:23 PM
If merchants get brew from floristry (a stretch, if you ask me) then everyone with brew should get floristry. 
So all those rangers in the wild and the cold-hearted killers of the Known can make pretty-pretty perfumes.

*ponders*

Can you apply perfume to a dead body?

New idea: Create an uber-assassin who uses various perfumes on the bodies, as her calling card.  I'm claiming this idea.  No one steal it, if you do I'll come after you. (Hopefully with my burglar-hunter-masterchef-apothecary-linguist-who-makes-instruments-on-the-side...just because)

A reverse Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, if you will. I love that movie.

Quote from: Saellyn on December 23, 2015, 11:47:59 AM
The only good subguild is GENERAL CRAFTloooool

Never again.

Make tinker a regular guild too op.

Quote from: manipura on December 23, 2015, 12:33:51 PM
There are plenty of decent options for guild and subguild/extended subguild combinations, depending on what you want to do with your character.
It seems though, that half of you just want things to be your way so you can come in and WIN ARMAGEDDON!  
And if you can't have a one day warrior that's pwning noobs -and- picking locks -and- making instruments -and- speaking fluent tatlum while you set up camp in the wilderness 'cause you wanna ranger too...then you just aren't happy and everything is broken.

I've known great 'outdoor' characters who weren't rangers.
I've known very effective/accomplished killers, that weren't assassins or maxed rangers.

Before I noticed -those- things about them though, I noticed what great RPers they were.

And they're all dead now, because Armageddon isn't for winning, it's for telling a story with all the other nerds who are telling their story at the same time.

Somewhere, in some other dimension, there's a version of the Armageddon forums with a like button. There's a like button, and I'm pressing it furiously and repeatedly for this post.

I don't really have much else to add, but in the interest of making a legit post...

Don't sleep on the absolute hell a well-played Burglar's skillset can bring down on even the best rangers and warriors out there.  :-*

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm in the "buff non-rangers" camp and I'm about as far from caring about "winning Armageddon" as you can get. It's just that in my experience, ranger feels the least "gamey" of all the classes I've tried, and I'd like the other classes to feel that way as well. I think overspecialization contributes to that feeling of...gaminess.

Quote from: Beethoven on December 23, 2015, 05:38:18 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm in the "buff non-rangers" camp and I'm about as far from caring about "winning Armageddon" as you can get. It's just that in my experience, ranger feels the least "gamey" of all the classes I've tried, and I'd like the other classes to feel that way as well. I think overspecialization contributes to that feeling of...gaminess.

I think that's where the majority of us sit. Having options is a good thing, and they don't necessarily have to overlap. I think the crafting skills burglars get are awesome because it's thematic of the guild. You aren't a burglar, you're making rat meat pies and serving them up all day and at night you just go out and make some extra on the side. I don't see what harm would be involved in giving them a few more generic crafting skills to pad out the fact they're not full time burglars. That's why people like rangers so much, they can do so many things AND have skills to help facilitate those things. Rangers can be medics, scavengers, grebbers, guides, and so much more just by virtue of being a ranger, before even adding in all the options a sub-guild gives. I just want that same level of awesome for all the classes.

The above two posts sums up my thoughts exactly.

I don't think it has to do with winning anything. For me it has a lot more to do with feeling like my PC is a living, breathing person instead of an assembly of predetermined skills.

If I pick a warrior guild but through IC happenings, thoughts, and motivations, my PC decides she wants to be a cobbler and make shoes, with the instruction, time and money to go and pour her life into it for a year, or two years, or five or ten years, I really wish it were possible for her to do that. But it's just not. I think it'd be really, really cool if you could add a new subguild for every five years of your PC's life past twenty.

I get that it's an older game and we have limitations. At least making the guilds a lot more flexible like ranger is would go a long, long way.

Quote from: Asanadas on December 23, 2015, 12:04:24 PM
Extended subguilds are a bandage, not a solution. I understand working Ext. Subguilds into normal character creation is coming (Soon), but as it is now, it's not a livable avenue of a solution. Three times every year, when the average character turnover is.... much faster than that. If I have one karma, I should be able to pick master chef for every character I want: and three for the others, as it stands.

That's how it's going to be one day (Soon) but until then, rangers are going to stay the most versatile option.

Part of working extended subguilds into character creation means anyone with the karma to use that subguild will have access to it like any other karma option. As I mentioned in my last post, we acknowledge it's not a be-all end-all solution, and that there is some other stuff being worked on to address these concerns.

I don't know all the details on this though, it's another project I'm not really involved in since it's primarily code stuff.

Quote from: Hicksville Hoochie on December 23, 2015, 04:38:33 PM

Quote from: manipura on December 23, 2015, 12:33:51 PM
There are plenty of decent options for guild and subguild/extended subguild combinations, depending on what you want to do with your character.
It seems though, that half of you just want things to be your way so you can come in and WIN ARMAGEDDON!  
And if you can't have a one day warrior that's pwning noobs -and- picking locks -and- making instruments -and- speaking fluent tatlum while you set up camp in the wilderness 'cause you wanna ranger too...then you just aren't happy and everything is broken.

I've known great 'outdoor' characters who weren't rangers.
I've known very effective/accomplished killers, that weren't assassins or maxed rangers.

Before I noticed -those- things about them though, I noticed what great RPers they were.

And they're all dead now, because Armageddon isn't for winning, it's for telling a story with all the other nerds who are telling their story at the same time.

Somewhere, in some other dimension, there's a version of the Armageddon forums with a like button. There's a like button, and I'm pressing it furiously and repeatedly for this post.

I don't really have much else to add, but in the interest of making a legit post...

Don't sleep on the absolute hell a well-played Burglar's skillset can bring down on even the best rangers and warriors out there.  :-*

Because there's no like button, and I'm not overly concerned  With Making legit posts.

Quote from: Dresan on December 21, 2015, 08:10:53 PM
I think most of the things rangers get make sense. The level of some of the things they get are a bit much in comparison to what others get at times. That said, I don't think rangers need to get nerfed but other classes definately need some love.

These aren't all my ideas but ideas I've certainly liked:

• Warriors are masters of all forms combat, they should become good enough to fight on a mount without needing a subguild ride.
• Assassin should branch the other weapons skills in order to better defend against them, and some of their skill levels should be adjusted. They should have the very best eyes in the game.
• Pickpocket should merge with burgalar and renamed thief, losing backstab, poison and throw but keeping sap (the thief subguild should be renamed pickpocket). They should have the best ears in the game.

However, I thought guilds were going to get looked at after sub-guilds. Not sure what the status is of the sub-guilds, there seemed to be changes coming but feels like that lost some steam.

I personally agree that burglar and pickpocket should be combined - throw should be kept, but really, back stab isn't really nessesary. I also personaly think they should have master level climb, but thats just me.

Ranger is my least favourite guild in terms of actual skills but I love the ability to quit in the wilderness.

For some reason staff seems to be unwilling to make an extended subguild with this ability. It'd certainly make it harder to camp common quit safe rooms to catch bad guys.

One day. I can dream.

I always love when these skills discussions come up and people try to argue their points while beating around the fact that we've pretty much all seen either the .zip file that's been making the rounds for over a decade or we've lurked through the other arm discussion board. While I'm lifting veils, I would like to point out that we all masturbate as well.

Now that we've got that out of the way, with regards to combat skill specifically, warriors, rangers, and assassins look basically like this:

• All 3 have weapon skills which cap at the same level. Obviously assassins are missing chopping and slashing, and warriors have their special weapon skills which almost none of them ever branch or raise to a significant extent.
• Rangers have a slightly higher cap to dual wield than warriors, but two hand is the same. Assassins have a significantly lower cap (~25%) in both skills.
• Warrior parry and shield use is significantly higher than ranger and assassin both, but assassin is still lower than ranger in both regards.

So if we're just using the "kill" command rangers are offensively just as good as warriors, and defensively only a bit worse. Obviously having parry to start with a is a huge benefit for the first 20 days played, but after that these two pretty much even out. Yeah, a warrior will probably win in the sparring circle, but in a real fight a ranger will mop the floor with them as long as their player is awake at the keyboard.

With that established, I think the reason that rangers seem OP is because they're extremely versitile. In a combat-focused clan they're just about as good of fighters as warriors, and are indispensable when your unit leaves the gates. In a merchant clan... I don't even need to finish this sentence. As an indy, a knowledgeable ranger will never have to spend a cent on food or water. There's always a need for a good ranger. More-so than any other class in the game, probably.

By comparison warriors are the bread and butter of most clans, but they don't really stand out. They're good at guarding, but they can't scan or listen for sneakys. They're good at killing critters, but they can't skin. They can't ride very well. They can't poison, brew, or hunt. Unless their opponent is willing to stand still for them, they can't PvP too well outside of apartments. Since they can't craft or hunt, they don't have as easy a time getting food, water, and money.

Outside of the rinth and noble aiding, assassins aren't too useful. They stick out like a sore thumb in the rank and file of any clan (which is where you'll spend all your time because being your boss's sneaky right hand is probably a far-off dream at best). They can't stand toe-to-toe with either ranger or warrior in the sparring ring, at any amount of time played. Poison and backstab should make up for this, but since all the poison is in the desert (your kryptonite), and backstab is basically impossible to train if you're being subtle about it at all... you won't be able to rely on these. So you're the least self-reliant of the three, and clans don't have much use for a low level assassin.

Obviously I'm painting with broad strokes here, and we've all played at least one exception to the rule, but generally this is where I see these classes at in terms of skill and game play.

I'm in the boat of wanting to elevate other classes, rather than gank the ranger. If every class were as versatile and fun as a ranger, this game would be a lot better. To that end, here are some ideas for improving other classes:

Warriors

• Up their ride cap and give them CHARGE (to a lower cap than ranger). There's no reason they shouldn't be able to function as effective cavalry.
• Give them scan off of guarding or rescue or something. Not ranger/assassin level, but useful enough to catch shitty thieves / assassins. One of their primary functions is as a guard, isn't it?
• Climb. Just. Climb. There's no reason a 1 room climb should add an hour to a Byn outing.

Assassins

• Give them all the weapon skills. A sword is a human vs human weapon, not a hunting weapon. So why should rangers have it, but not assassins?
• Rework backstab. Have it start at like jman or advanced, and have it add very little to the actual success of backstabbing. Instead, have backstab feed off of the character's other skills. Sneak / hide could determine success, and offense / piercing weapons could determine damage. Doing this would mean that you could get backstab past apprentice without having to risk losing karma.
• Give access to brew from something OTHER THAN poison. You'll still have a hard time gathering the materials you need, but at least you won't kill yourself long before you're able to train it safely.

Burglars & Pickpockets
Just combine them. I agree that a single rogue class, as D&D has, would be ungodly powerful in Armageddon. But if you gave assassins the combat aspect of the rogue, while Burglars and Pickpockets got the cunning, theiving aspects I think you would have much more compelling classes. They would overlap quite a bit, but one would be combat focused and the other wouldn't be quite as much.

Rangers
I think part of what makes them so good in Arm is that they pretty much are as they were in D&D. D&D Rangers are modeled after Aragorn and were considered warriors, not hunters. They have Fighter-level base attack bonuses and hit points, but where fighters get more feats (and thus better combat maneuvers like disarm and trip), rangers got outdoorsy skills. They were made for hunting orcs, not antelopes. If anything, the versitility of the armageddon rangers really begs the question, what are they? Hunters? Military scouts? Raiders? I think the answer is "they are what you play them as", so I'd rather not see them changed. Gun to my head, though, I would say reduce their melee effectiveness a little bit.

While your post is well thought out, some points I take issue with:

QuoteWith that established, I think the reason that rangers seem OP is because they're extremely versitile. In a combat-focused clan they're just about as good of fighters as warriors, and are indispensable when your unit leaves the gates. In a merchant clan... I don't even need to finish this sentence. As an indy, a knowledgeable ranger will never have to spend a cent on food or water. There's always a need for a good ranger. More-so than any other class in the game, probably.

This is pretty much what I was addressing.  People are talking in terms of leaving gates, where there is one and only dominant guild.  The ranger.  Warriors are a close second.  Warriors -can- skin, just not as well, but well enough to make a very decent living off of.  If anything, the thing holding both rangers and warriors back as far as 'survival' with their skinning skill isn't skinning, it's cooking.  However, my point is that this is not a case of 'Rangers are so much better than everything else', it's a case of people including outdoor activity as a mainstay of the game.  If going outside the gates is a large part of the game for you, of -course- you will like rangers more, and I'm completely okay with that and it does not mean the game needs tuning to making everything else more outdoor-viable as well.

I alternate between characters that spend all their time outside, all their time inside, and varying degrees between, which makes my mundane class/subclass combinations vary.

Quotey comparison warriors are the bread and butter of most clans, but they don't really stand out. They're good at guarding, but they can't scan or listen for sneakys. They're good at killing critters, but they can't skin. They can't ride very well. They can't poison, brew, or hunt. Unless their opponent is willing to stand still for them, they can't PvP too well outside of apartments. Since they can't craft or hunt, they don't have as easy a time getting food, water, and money.

Good at guarding, excellent.  Can't scan or listen or sneakies?  Well, they can if they plan on specializing against sneakies, in which case they can use subguilds to implement that.  However, I would note that guarding against sneakies does not make them the aggressor, it makes them the protector.  Sneakies will have to plan and coordinate if they expect there to be strong warriors present protecting their target.  I went over this before;  Strong warriors are possibly the scariest thing for sneakies to be told 'Hey, deal with this guy.'  For an assassin?  It makes it so that if their preliminary plan slips up, they are in some serious shit.  Likewise, if they are going after a target with warrior guards, the moment they try to succeed is also the moment that they expose themselves as a threat.  The Guard is not the uber-pvper, it is the protector.  More on this below, but this is what makes the Warrior special.  They really do own the room they're in, as far as mundanes (granting further discussion below on why all these approaches are actually flawed arguments).

QuoteOutside of the rinth and noble aiding, assassins aren't too useful. They stick out like a sore thumb in the rank and file of any clan (which is where you'll spend all your time because being your boss's sneaky right hand is probably a far-off dream at best). They can't stand toe-to-toe with either ranger or warrior in the sparring ring, at any amount of time played. Poison and backstab should make up for this, but since all the poison is in the desert (your kryptonite), and backstab is basically impossible to train if you're being subtle about it at all... you won't be able to rely on these. So you're the least self-reliant of the three, and clans don't have much use for a low level assassin.

This sounds logical, but is actually very inaccurate to a large degree.  Both for IC reasons that I can't discuss, and for the assertion that everyone will be on equal ground.

The big problem with where you're coming from is that you're assuming that:
1) The vast majority of players will meet their skill caps.
2) The vast majority of pvp is between people of equal skill and/or playing time.
3) Everyone should play their classes the same way as a warrior.

In reality:
1) The vast majority of characters, even the incredibly long lived ones, do not hit their maximums in all these determinant skills.  I have played 100+ day characters with apprentice weapon skills.  Thus, speaking in absolutes about skill caps as if they matter is entirely misleading, because the caps will only be reached if that is your sole goal and will -still- take a good amount of time.  (Note:  This is not to say I don't understand that caps = potential, but I -am- saying that make judgments and changes based off potentiality that is rarely reached is problematic.) This leads to the next bit:
2) If you play a long lived assassin, the majority of people you fight, even warriors, will not fight as well as you.  If you end up fighting one, you will lose the straight combat, but are given a variety of tools to deal with those situations.  Long-lived anything, by and large, will generally be surrounded by less long-lived people.  There are exceptions and swings to this, but trying to equivocate changes in the game based off of scenarios that are very uncommon is not a healthy design tool.  This is akin to saying that since you made a new ranger, and he doesn't fight as well as the other guy in the Byn who joined at the same time, that the game is in need of modification, which is plainly not true.  That is intentional.
3) I have played very deadly burglars.  I played one pickpocket who was also known for his fingers, but moreso for his ruthlessness in the alleys.  As long as comparisons are weighted towards 'If you try to make them try to do the things a ranger does, they suck', then you're filtering your data in an inefficient manner.  Burglars, pickpockets, assassins, warriors...they are all very powerful in their own way, as long as you take into account what way that is.  I really do get rather flabbergasted when I see things like 'Warriors do okay in PvP...if you get them in a locked room.'  Such is like you're lazy about how you want to do it.  Particularly with subguilds, they all get rather deadly in ways that you get to customize...and that's only if your goal is to make them deadly, rather than 'just useful'.

Your suggestions (and sorry, I'm not a web forum format advanced or even apprentice; I am a novice):

Warriors:
  - I can get behind them having a higher ride cap, but not the charge.  I believe it was a topic of discussion some years back about how Zalanthan cavalry was never meant to be a mainstay or that advanced.  I would, however, like to see them able to reliably serve as actual caravan guards, rather than that being the realm of the ranger.
  - No to scan and listen unless they choose a subguild for it.  I appreciate what you're saying about keeping it low, but low scan doesn't really help with anything, and all it will result in is the demand for it to be lifted to higher levels later.  I'd rather they just get into their head that they want to be good at it, and invest in it.
  - No to climb (or very very low cap on it), but yes to additions that point to assisted climbing.  Honestly, if this is taking you an hour to deal with a 1 room climb, you're doing it wrong.  Use nosave, roleplay assisted climbing, and you're done in ten minutes, which seems realistic for a sudden scaling to be an obstacle to an average military unit.  If it's a bigger obstacle than that, you probably needed a more specialized group selected for that mission rather than trying to make it an all inclusive thing just because.

Assassins:
  - I'm okay with everything you said.  The poison/brew thing is pretty wonky, and is not how it used to be (I'm not sure whose idea that was).  I agree with backstab changes, though I don't find them absolutely necessary, but I like the idea of it being more dependent on other factors than skill, because twinking backstab is one of those things that makes me shake my head when I see it.
  - I stand by assassins already being pretty amazing as city-based rangers.  They fight on par with rangers up until 15-20 days playing time (I don't know where you get the impression that two classes with the same skills perform them differently prior to hitting caps), where they hit the level that their methods of fighting become painfully different anyway.

Rangers:
  - In your D&D comparison, you left out how the warrior/ranger comparison is intrinsically flawed.  They even define the roles as inherently different.  Rangers are meant as strikers and damage dealers.  Warriors are meant as tanks and controllers.  You say the difference is feats and brush it off, but there is a major disparity between the two in defensive capability via armor proficiency and that greater access to feats.  This is currently well-emulated in the game.  However, I did agree with the point someone made about throw; I'm not sure why rangers get such a high throwing skill.  I don't see them using throwing knives over arrows, and I don't see them being as good at throwing spears/javelins as warriors.  As a matter of fact, this would be an area I'd like to see warriors improved in, with some sort of passive ability to throw their weapon -during- combat, or somesuch, while seeing ranger ability cut back in it.


And finally...

I do not disagree with your need for some things in terms of the warrior.  I just always saw it as a new class that was between assassin and warrior.  Less developed in close combat, but more developed in acquisition/hunting of the criminal element.  I wanted to call it the City Guard class or something similar, where they had lower combat caps and fewer combat skills, but picked up very capable scan, listen, and city hunt, amid other things, but that would require more discussion.


Edit:  And to clarify, because I think it comes across the wrong way.  I'm not saying skill caps don't matter because no one reaches them, I'm saying the level of buff/nerf that some people are approaching are flawed approaches since they're talking about it being an edge to one class or another in a place that is very seldom reached.  Ranger having more parry than assassin so seldom becomes relevant in the game, due to how assassins operate, that using it as the justification for combat changes is jumping the gun a bit.

Tough to come in after two amazing posts like that, but I did want to add in something that reiterates what I said before:

Warriors, as guards and stuff are GREAT, but their helpfile would suggest they're employable as great fighters and etc etc. There's not enough humanoid vs humanoid combat to make a warrior a good choice, if fighting is what you want to do. Bash is based more on height than anything else. Kick is on the same progression as weapon skills. Even at a decent level of guard that you get just for being a warrior, how often do PCs need PC guardsmen? And how often does it even work in the first place?

I used to play warriors, a lot. Through twinking, I've even branched a couple advanced weapon skills. But I never PvP'd anyone because bash was NEVER reliable, throw isn't high enough to be useful, and you're almost always in a city where you'd just end up fighting/killing soldiers and pissing off the Templars anyways.

I think what makes rangers seem OP, other than their utility, is the fact that a lot of combat takes place outside the realm of the law, which is to say the city as a whole. Not all, just a lot. So, their skillset seems superior because chances are you're always in their backyard. The chances of being in a warrior's backyard means you're in a controlled area like the Arena or a sparring ring, or behind a locked door they can't escape from.


* - all this said, warrior bash is so powerful goddamn one time I counted and it was like 30seconds before the other person could move and I pooped myself in excitement

Bash is tied to height to an incredibly stupid degree. It's bad enough that elves and half-giants have a hard time failing a bash. And poort stumps might as well not even bother trying the skill.

Thank you for the thorough response Armaddict. I fully acknowledge that there are practical flaws in the way I argued some of my points, and I agree with almost all of the holes you've poked in them.

The reason I argued classes based on their (rarely met) skill caps and ignored sub-guilds is because the title says "Rangers OP". I wanted to argue the class itself, at its full potential. If you add in subguilds, variable skill levels, stats, environment, etc. there's way too many variables at play. We could argue compositions like that all day long and not get anywhere. But if you talk about classes at their highest potential, without subguilds, I think we get a much better picture of the class - if not a very realistic one.

As far as the D&D comparisons, I brought them in because Armageddon is a (highly evolved) Diku MUD, and Diku MUD was developed to emulate AD&D. This is probably another flawed argument because who can say, really, how much influence AD&D and the original diku codebase had on the Arm classes as they exist now. To me it was the only reason I could come up with why rangers would be almost just as good as warriors in terms of combat skill caps, while assassins ("urban rangers") trail significantly behind both. Though, I don't really agree with the whole Striker/Controller/Tank argument. That nonsense was introduced in 4e where they pigeon holed incredibly flexible classes down into condensed garbage that all played exactly the same. Plus, Armageddon rangers don't have a hard limit on how armored they can be. If you have the strength to wear horror shell without encumbering yourself, there's absolutely no reason not to. (I hate this mechanic, but there it is.)

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 01, 2016, 11:27:18 PM
Bash is tied to height to an incredibly stupid degree. It's bad enough that elves and half-giants have a hard time failing a bash. And poort stumps might as well not even bother trying the skill.

I had a warrior with Master bash once, who still failed regularly because of size. Its supposedly one of the Warrior's bread and butter skills.

Ranger has no bread-and-butter skills that fail against other people on size, unless you're a half-giant trying to sneak in the woods and even then, it doesn't have the ramifications on failure like bash does.

I know this is just repeating what Reiv just said, but It's a great point. All the skills warriors get, they never really get to use. There are just so few instances when they're useful, and if they're not mastered(and apparently even when some are) they become a huge liability.

I mostly play warriors. Like, 80% of my character are warriors. The fact is, you're usually on a mount and outside the gates. And very, very seldom does combat take place in cities.

I have never, not once used Bash effectively in a real combat situation.
I have never, not even a single time, had Kick be helpful in a real combat situation.

I have however used Disarm in PvP(against someone I was clobbering anyways). And... they just pulled another blade from their inventory like it was no big thing(npc's do this too). It was never worth the risk of fumbling and dropping your weapon in an actually dangerous situation, because you get all the delay, and they get nothing.

What does a warrior have that actually sees use and is helpful? Rescue is good. Subdue is good. Shield-use and parry are strong. And honestly, that's really it, and they're incredibly inflexible skills that can only be used in very specific circumstances.

Possible solutions:

Disarm needs to apply a delay to the person getting disarmed, so they can't just immediately pull out another one.

Kick needs to be "strike", and be targetable with different effects for where you hit(stamina loss to legs, stun to head/body, attack delay to arms, that sort've thing).

Bash needs to be effective and not so dependent on height, and you should be able to bash doors down(and get crimflagged).

Guard should be more effective, especially against hidden enemies and you should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger link=topic=50287.msg919749#msg91quote author=RogueGunslinger link=topic=50287.msg919749#msg919749 Possible solutions:

Disarm needs to apply a delay to the person getting disarmed, so they can't just immediately pull out another one.

Kick needs to be "strike", and be targetable with different effects for where you hit(stamina loss to legs, stun to head/body, attack delay to arms, that sort've thing).

Bash needs to be effective and not so dependent on height, and you should be able to bash doors down(and get crimflagged).

Guard should be more effective, especially against hidden enemies and you should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Fuck it.... I keep screwing up when I try editing the quote....

I like all of these ideas, especially the door bashing. I made a topic about it once when I first started forum-ing and only managed to get
"Wish up and you might get some love" .

Have there been changes to bash anytime recently?  I used to use shields on a dwarf and never fail bash.  I used to lose mul warriors to well-trained humans because of bash.

So when I hear that it fails this much, I know it's that way -early-, but it always hit a point for me where the irritating height thing wasn't that it wouldn't work.  It always worked for me.  It was that elves would counter my dwarf and mul bash with regularity.

Edited to add:  This is not to degrade your point.  I agree that it is ridiculously dependent on height, and it should not be.

I think a lot of ranger envy amongst warriors would disappear if warrior's started with advanced weapon skills, or branched them much earlier in their career.

Would make them the clear masters of melee combat, where they belong.

I think most skills should branch much quicker. Perhaps when the skill hits advanced, instead of forcing people to grind for those extra fails up to master.

Quote from: wizturbo on January 02, 2016, 03:26:20 AM
I think a lot of ranger envy amongst warriors would disappear if warrior's started with scan advanced weapon skills, or branched them much earlier in their career.

FTFY

Quoteyou should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Uhm.  I'm pretty sure it already works this way.  And I've told you before, I've had the encounters where shield-user is blocking 4 out of 5 (this is not an exact number, this is how it felt through the frustration of seeing the message that it was deflected by the shield over and and over again) of my ranged shots.  Granted, this could have been subject to changes.  This was during the time where shield use was common.  It's not anymore, despite it helping against these sorts of things and making bash better.

QuoteI think most skills should branch much quicker. Perhaps when the skill hits advanced, instead of forcing people to grind for those extra fails up to master.

I've never branched weapon skills on a warrior, so I need to ask this question when I think of this.  When you branch a weapon skill, does the new weapon skill work just like the old weapon skill?  Or do they build on each other?  I.e. Does a knife use both piercing and the knives skill?  Or just the knives skill?  If they build on each other, I'm very content with them being very difficult to branch.

If they start fresh as a brand new, stand alone weapon skill...I'd say let warriors branch that shit -early- in advanced.  Heh.

They branch an entirely new weapon skill that you have to train all the way up from the bottom.

Yeah, warriors "combat superiority" is pretty underwhelming in reality.

Bash, as people have said, is incredibly dependent on height. Even the difference between a human and an elf is noticeable. I agree that height should have an effect, but think it should probably be scaled back. I do believe that a dwarf would have a hard time physically body checking an elf who's twice his height. And I love that HGs are flawless bashing machines because... they're huge. Maybe we need a trip skill also / instead? Bash also stands a good chance of fucking you over, instead of your opponent, which has always made me hesitant to use it in a close fight. If I could beat you with one hand tied behind my back, I'll bash you. If you're holding your own (the situation where I could most benefit from a bash), I probably won't. But that's just me. If you or your opponent are mounted it's useless.

Kick can be a pretty solid extra damage dealer, when you get it ground up. But it's useless when you or your opponent are mounted.

Disarm is nice, but most characters have at least a skinning knife they can pull as a backup. Also, since it stands a good chance of fucking you over instead, I've always shied away from using it when I really -need- something dead. I would agree that adding a draw delay to this would help a lot - that way you're all but guaranteed to get a few solid hits in while your enemy is fumbling to recover. Also, if your enemy is dual wielding, you'll have to land it until they run out of weapons before you get the huge combat bonus from it.

Advanced weapon skills should be awesome, but I very much doubt that they are. I've never branched one, so this will be mostly speculation. They're hard to branch both because weapon skills take such a long time to raise, and because as a warrior with advanced combat and weapon skills, you'll have a hard time getting in those all-too-important misses. You're basically only going to get them from other 20 day warriors at that point, but even then... Once you finally branch an advanced weapon skill, it starts very low. Probably low enough that you'll see a night and day difference between your sword skill and your razor skill, for instance. That being said, with high combat style skills and offense... you'll also have a hard time training your advanced weapon. You wouldn't be horrible with it because, at that point, you should be able to kill a half-giant with a dull spoon... but I doubt you will ever get your polearm skill high enough to make it more effective than your chopping. Speculation, but I feel pretty confident about it.

Its a lot of focus on warriors right now, and there are a lot of good points, and I'd just like to say that its there as a counterpoint to the Rangers being OP. While there are a lot of things about warriors I would like to see changed (and mine are minimal changes, to be honest), rangers just 'have it all'. And they should have a lot, because they are ranged outdoor specialists. Their skills are archery, and living off the land, and not NEEDING to engage in melee combat.

Of course, they do, because with the skills they have why WOULDN'T they? Why do rangers have all the weapon skills they have? Why are they so good at rescuing people in melee combat? Why can they poison, cure, forage food, shoot you from three rooms away (I know, this is less the case now), and have less lag from the archery shot as someone has from throwing a fucking pie?

Lets talk about THAT for a second. Throw has a relatively okay chance at doing something special, even at high levels of the skill. And the lag time between throws is like 7-8 seconds. For archery, its about half that time at 4 seconds. And I've seen an arrow do 80+ damage without any obvious special modifiers. AND THATS FINE. But why does someone who can do 80+ damage from range, also have equivalent melee skills as the person who is born and bred for melee combat? Why do rangers even GET parry? If this was DnD, sure. They're hunting goblins, and orcs, and 'creatures' that have weapons. But in Arm they're hunters, fighting jozhal and spiders and stuff.

Merchants:

• Should start with bandage making and should branch bandage and brewing from that.
• Should get one weapon skill, preferably the weapon skill most common to the region. It should only go to journeyman at best

I don't think giving scan would change much, not in its current state. Scan isn't even that great on rangers after a certain point. I made this suggestion years ago, and it wasn't popular then, I don't expect it to be popular now but...

I think sneak/hide should be actually separated into its two distinct skills. Wilderness sneak/wilderness hide, and city sneak/city hide. Neither version should not work at all in the opposing environment.  Scan can then also be fully separated where rangers can only see only the wilderness version, and assassins can only see the other.  

Hide and sneak, particularly the city versions are really powerful and its too readily available to rangers without an investment in an extended guild. I think this would also be a large boon to assassins who again I feel should have the best eyes in the city.

They are two separate entities.

They kinda are but there is a loop hole which I feel should be closed. Sorry.  :'(

I might agree with Assassins getting a "city" scan per se. They'd certainly be the ones knowing who is trying " a bit too hard " to blend in with a crowd, or which shadows and alleys to look in.

And yeah, with a couple subguild choices you can turn a Ranger's skillset into almost any other guild with workable ease. Its not as easy to turn a merchant into a thief, or a warrior into a pickpocket.

Quote from: Riev on January 02, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Why do rangers have all the weapon skills they have? Why are they so good at rescuing people in melee combat? Why can they poison, cure, forage food, shoot you from three rooms away (I know, this is less the case now), and have less lag from the archery shot as someone has from throwing a fucking pie?

Lets talk about THAT for a second.

Agree on the weapons skills.  I would like to see Rangers made more of a hunter class.  Give them piercing and archery.  Leave block.   No Parry.  If you want bludgeoning or slashing get that as part of a sub-guild like fighters need to get their rangery skills as part of a sub-guild. 

The rest of the survival skills though?  I'd think they belong.

Well hold on now.

I think rangers should get bludgeoning weapons, because it would do the least damage to the hide.

Quote from: Armaddict on January 02, 2016, 04:27:18 AM

Quoteyou should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Uhm.  I'm pretty sure it already works this way.  And I've told you before, I've had the encounters where shield-user is blocking 4 out of 5 (this is not an exact number, this is how it felt through the frustration of seeing the message that it was deflected by the shield over and and over again) of my ranged shots.  Granted, this could have been subject to changes.  This was during the time where shield use was common.  It's not anymore, despite it helping against these sorts of things and making bash better.

You can block arrows from hitting the person you guard?

Today I learned.

Quote from: Saellyn on January 02, 2016, 03:14:23 PM
Well hold on now.

I think rangers should get bludgeoning weapons, because it would do the least damage to the hide.

I agree. And they should get spears for shelled creatures. They should get piercing/blugeoning to journeyman and slashing to apprentice. And spears/daggers really should not be under the same skill. Not at all.

That's the second time somebody has agreed with me publicly.

I agree with the blunt weapons too. I think weapon skills to journeyman or mid journeyman is good enough for someone who should be fighting from range anyways.  

Rangers should probably get chopping weapons instead of slashing weapons.

Since I think  axes feel more suited for hunting, skinning, or killing trees and swords are more suited for guards and soldiers. Not to say soldiers/guards can't use axes, but that should be a warriors preference.


Again I think assassin should branch slashing and chopping weapons too (at apprentice and max at journeyman) at some point in their career mostly for defensive purposes, like their help file says they become akin to warriors late in their career. I don't mind them being the second best fighter in the game next to warriors.

Spears and clubs are more for hunting. Rangers aren't exactly lumberjacks.

Primitive axes were very useful for hunting actually. I mean the moment you attach a sharp stone to a stick it practically became the first axe, which is much more effective than just any club. It would be more useful for finishing off prey after you shoot it down, and then chopping into the carcass and going through those larger bones and joints.

All I'm saying is that it would be a better weapon for them to know than swords. Oh and in the north, all my rangers were lumberjacks. Granted in the south they are mostly miners now with pickaxes.   ;D

Are zalanthan rangers hunters though? Or are they raiders? Or some other kind of military scout?

And who says they specialize in archery? Obviously they have the highest cap, but does that mean they should only shoot things? How does this work out when bows cost about half of your starting coin, and it takes about 20 arrows to down weak prey? And we all play in the south where bow and arrow prices are hiked up.

I could get behind a SMALL melee nerf, but what I'm hearing here is "gut the class."  I'll point out that journeyman weapon skills" is like burglar / pickpocket level... And even pickpockets get parry, so taking that away is just cold.

Has the discussion rolled around to taking weapon styles away from rangers? Wtf.

Quote from: Majikal on January 02, 2016, 06:16:12 PM
Has the discussion rolled around to taking weapon styles away from rangers? Wtf.

My only question was why they have all the skills that they do, looking for a justification. Zalanthas is a harsh world, even harsher in the desert. Rangers are ranged specialists. Not a single person can deny that. Assassins are specialists at backstabs and attacking from the shadows and waiting for the right moment. Neither of these things DEFINES the class, and people can perfectly use an assassin skillset and not use backstab a single time.

The question is, DO rangers need access to all the weapon skills they have? Does it make sense that someone specialized to the outdoors is using a sword? Or that they are potentially AS GOOD with that sword as a trained gladiator? Rangers can be a simple hunter, or they can be Special Ops, but the fact  that they do everything that two other classes can do and are AS GOOD at it, is a little concerning.

I'll deny it Riev. They have highest cap, but that doesn't mean that it should be their main / only mode of combat. Just because you're hung like a horse doesn't mean you have to do porn.

And frankly, the term "Ranger" is more militaristic than it is outdoorsmany. They're not called "hunters" or "archers."

Rangers's best, most powerful and deadly tool is their bow. Archery itself is more powerful than many form of magick. Arguing that they're not a ranged specialist seems pretty silly, as we're not discussing the roleplay opportunities of the ranger, we're talking about their skillset.

Um... no. Magick is way better than archery. And apprentice weapon skills? What are they now merchants?


Jeez you guys. Let's make other classes more fun instead of making rangers miserable.

Facepalm.



edit: This facepalm is because I, and almost everyone, would rather other classes get buffs instead of ranger get nerfs. And because of course magick is stronger than archery.

Quote from: IAmJacksOpinion on January 02, 2016, 06:31:58 PM
I'll deny it Riev. They have highest cap, but that doesn't mean that it should be their main / only mode of combat. Just because you're hung like a horse doesn't mean you have to do porn.

And frankly, the term "Ranger" is more militaristic than it is outdoorsmany. They're not called "hunters" or "archers."

Were we playing a game wherein our skills were a bit more fluid, I would be apt to agree with you. But we're talking about an entire set of skills and whether or not they make this one guild more powerful/interesting/overpowered than others in a general sense.

Frankly, I have less a problem with the code of it, and more the RP of it because, as I said earlier, there isn't enough humanoid vs humanoid combat that REQUIRES units like Byn Mercenaries and Tor graduates. 90% of the combat in came is vs beast-type mobiles, and the humanoid combat is mostly NPC gith. If there were more of a reason for bashing, and disarming, and rescuing and all that, Warriors would definitely shine. But the time in which they shine is VASTLY overshadowed by the time in which Rangers shine. THAT is my problem. Rangers are good in just about every situation you drop them in and are AS. CAPABLE. as other classes which are supposedly specialized to those situations.

That's very authoritatively stated but I disagree with you on the simple principle that my experience proves you wrong. Warrior tactics have a ton of use and if you're well trained in group/mass combat - which yes takes ic and ooc practice - I would bet on the group that has a mixed unit rather than the group that just has rangers. And I loved having warriors in my unit.

Let's be real - the reason rangers get so much love is because they have direction sense and wilderness quit. You level out the wilderness quit situation, spice up the warrior skill set to give them limited observation and climb skills, and I can't see any more room for complaint save from those that just don't understand how to make combat work for them.

How many years now and suddenly rangers OP?  :-\ Meh.

Quote from: Majikal on January 03, 2016, 01:08:27 AM
How many years now and suddenly rangers OP?  :-\ Meh.

About my feelings. I don't understand the notion of taking a class so many love and trying to "fix" it. The far more logical solution is to consider why it is so well loved and bring the other classes up to par.

Give rangers wilderness backstab

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 01:54:30 AM
Give rangers wilderness backstab

This is archery!

Bash the gicker, disarm the gith, and rescue people being beaten on.

Bash people who drop their weapon.

Bash people who might run.

Pray your opponent isn't riding.

There you go, warrior tactics everybody.


Subdue should disarm the person subdued, like it does the subduer.

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

Quote from: Delirium on January 03, 2016, 12:55:35 AM
That's very authoritatively stated but I disagree with you on the simple principle that my experience proves you wrong. Warrior tactics have a ton of use and if you're well trained in group/mass combat - which yes takes ic and ooc practice - I would bet on the group that has a mixed unit rather than the group that just has rangers. And I loved having warriors in my unit.

Let's be real - the reason rangers get so much love is because they have direction sense and wilderness quit. You level out the wilderness quit situation, spice up the warrior skill set to give them limited observation and climb skills, and I can't see any more room for complaint save from those that just don't understand how to make combat work for them.

I suppose shield and rescue is nice in a mass combat situation, but so is a two-hander and charge half the time. Ranger/protector is sweet i think for those leadership roles.

Unless sneak and hide got nerfed recently, I am not sure why scan even at ranger level scan on a warrior would matter? Climb? Meh. I've mentioned this before but climb is a funny skill that won't actually save your life when the time comes even if mastered, its nice getting out holes that you survive with less hassle i suppose.

As I said I think warriors only need hands free ride, this will open up some more sub-guild choices for warriors. You can pick stuff like warrior/rogue and still join the byn. Sure you will need to be led around during storms but you'll fight like a beast on mount or otherwise when you get there.

Now if you really want to make warriors OP....then let them branch direction sense alongside blindfighting. If they got ride AND eventually branched direction sense (you know since the helpfile says they often find themselves chosen to be leaders of groups) then it would be a really really hard choice between ranger or warrior (for me at least).

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

It can just as easily apply to dual-wield, kick, bash and others.

Why warriors, whose "skills involve only the many aspects of fighting" don't already get 2hand ride and charge is beyond me. If you want to be a heavy-cavalry-type PC, you either need to take ranger/protector (or just get massive skilled up) or be a warrior+riding subguild. And I'm not sure they get charge even then.

A warrior+riding is also pretty much just a dude who can beat stuff in melee while mounted as well as afoot, while a ranger's a... ranger, with all their fun skills to play with.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 03, 2016, 04:04:25 AM

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

It can just as easily apply to dual-wield, kick, bash and others.

I've never struggled to get up dwield kick bash or anything from the Combat Skills list, no, and I'm like the laziest skiller ever

Don't your characters last for real-life years?

Maybe you prioritize wisdom.

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

You don't have to be focused on maxing out to realize that no, when everyone gets stuck around apprentice/journeyman on their weapon skills, warriors do not actually commonly get their weapon skills better than everyone else.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 07:05:40 AM

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

You don't have to be focused on maxing out to realize that no, when everyone gets stuck around apprentice/journeyman on their weapon skills, warriors do not actually commonly get their weapon skills better than everyone else.

Tons of guilds have no or few weapon skills.

Maybe everybody is ranger? I mean shit, I got a PC to branch a weapon skill through a minimum amount of fighting just this year

Then that isn't normal and you should look at how you were able to do that, because most people who play warriors and start at their baseline skills experience an incredibly painful grind to get their weapon skills to move up.

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 09:36:09 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 07:05:40 AM

Quote from: Case on January 03, 2016, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 03, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

You don't have to be focused on maxing out to realize that no, when everyone gets stuck around apprentice/journeyman on their weapon skills, warriors do not actually commonly get their weapon skills better than everyone else.

Tons of guilds have no or few weapon skills.

Maybe everybody is ranger? I mean shit, I got a PC to branch a weapon skill through a minimum amount of fighting just this year

I can play the anecdote game too: I have never branched a weapon skill on a warrior, included on a long-lived Byn half-elf with exceptional wisdom during a time when my play times were probably higher than any other point in my Arming career.

Warriors are supposed to be better at weapons than every guild, including rangers. See help warrior. But right now, saying warriors have the potential to be the best at weapons is like saying every PC has the potential to manifest magickal powers or learn sorcery. Theoretically true, but good luck with that.

Well yeah, weapon skills need fixing but that's not a ranger's fault.

After more thought:

I still think warriors should get hand free ride.  However everyone except rangers (and those with greater rapport with animals) should lose trample.


Trample is a neat little skill but it was really only first destined for the ranger before tons of negative feedback on the loss of the old version of the charge skill. Current  sub-guilds like nomad, caravan guide and mercenary with ride would get the Trample skill to go along with their hand free ride. Grebber would get trample and charge(if they don't already) to compliment the ride they get. This is so that there is still reason for warriors to take these sub-guilds along with just about anyone else.

Everyone gets hands free ride now if they are agile enough and good at riding. I had hands free ride as an assassin. Stop using agility as a dump stat I guess.

A cavalry subguild could be cool. Master ride, charge, trample, direction sense and a few other perks.

QuoteRanger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat

From the helpfiles.

"Some moderate skill with weapons" means, in this case, "exactly as good with weapons as a non-branched warrior".

This all seems so straight forward and simple to me, I'm sort of surprised there's so much debate here.

Rangers - the BEST at riding, archery, skinning, and a whole slew of desert survival skills.  All of these skills are extremely useful in everyday play, and readily attainable.

Warriors - the BEST at combat and weapon skills, in theory...  But in practice, it's so damn difficult to attain these areas where they have mastery that it's almost never seen.  This would be like taking away Ranger's archery skills and making them branch off reaching master piercing weapons.  Why are these 'advanced' weapon types so ridiculously hard to get?  Are they extremely overpowered?  I'm guessing they aren't, but the people who manage to branch them have survived so long that their skills are near max and they'd be lethal with a stone fork.

Make a Warrior's core skills attainable from the start, or branch in a more reasonable time frame, and the disparity between the two rival classes will lessen significantly.

This is an easy fix, that doesn't require updating entire areas of combat code, reworking entire combat skills, or pissing off a bunch of people by nerfing Rangers down to levels where there isn't such a perceived disparity between them and warriors.

Quote from: wizturbo on January 03, 2016, 02:36:18 PM
This all seems so straight forward and simple to me, I'm sort of surprised there's so much debate here.

Rangers - the BEST at riding, archery, skinning, and a whole slew of desert survival skills.  All of these skills are extremely useful in everyday play, and readily attainable.

Warriors - the BEST at combat and weapon skills, in theory...  But in practice, it's so damn difficult to attain these areas where they have mastery that it's almost never seen.  This would be like taking away Ranger's archery skills and making them branch off reaching master piercing weapons.  Why are these 'advanced' weapon types so ridiculously hard to get?  Are they extremely overpowered?  I'm guessing they aren't, but the people who manage to branch them have survived so long that their skills are near max and they'd be lethal with a stone fork.

Make a Warrior's core skills attainable from the start, or branch in a more reasonable time frame, and the disparity between the two rival classes will lessen significantly.

This is an easy fix, that doesn't require updating entire areas of combat code, reworking entire combat skills, or pissing off a bunch of people by nerfing Rangers down to levels where there isn't such a perceived disparity between them and warriors.

Well said. And with the patience and clarity I wish I'd summoned.

The reason why there's so much debate is because this thread was used as a throwaway thread to just toss in a bunch of random wants as far as classes and skills go, all under the name of 'But they're not rangers yet.'

What you've just said was established as the desired, correct course of action back in the weapon skill thread, where even those of us who wanted no changes to weapon skill progression agreed that warriors should be branching their weapon skills earlier.

While we're on the topic of improving guilds, I'd just like to reiterate the point that adding skills that can only realistically be reached through twinking and then expecting the playerbase not to twink is a failure for both players and admins. Its not the city elf warrior's fault that he has to wear tons of bags of rocks because he wants to rock razors. Ah, who am I kidding? No one plays city elf warriors. #buffagility2016

Quote from: Delirium on January 03, 2016, 02:23:27 PM
Everyone gets hands free ride now if they are agile enough and good at riding. I had hands free ride as an assassin. Stop using agility as a dump stat I guess.

A cavalry subguild could be cool. Master ride, charge, trample, direction sense and a few other perks.

How could you possibly know this is tied to agility? I don't at all think a warrior being able to use the only fucking thing he's good at, -melee-, while riding is a bad idea.

I've had assassins with extremely good and another with exceptional agility and I've never gotten hands free ride, even with gear.I dunno, it is not the first time I've heard of this agility rumor but I've never actually seen it once in game. 


Not to mention I would find it incredibly silly to have to roll insane agility just to be able to do what you are good at. Stats already matter too much as it is for some characters.

There are enough subguilds (and a race) that give bonuses to ride that I don't think warriors need to start with it. We're not talking about a skill like climb where you have very few options if you want it.

This is again kind of a side issue--the problem is fighting mounted has never come with the proper penalties (the help files used to say it did, but those references seem to have been cleared out), and foot soldiers have no way to deal with a mounted adversary like they would realistically.

I would address this as part of improving the combat techniques. Add the command unseat, a buffed bash (tied to your bash skill) for use exclusively against mounted opponents. Failure only gives you a delay instead of making you fall down, and you get big bonuses to it if you are on foot wielding a spear, pike or polearm.

...just to do what you're good at?

Choose a subguild with ride, or the class that rides, otherwise it's not what you're good at.  Nothing in the game equals cavalry, even rangers, due to nuances with how the mounted combat skills work (it works, just not well).  The best we do is mounted archers, which is indeed ranger-y.

Again, cavalry was ruled a very primitive thing in Zalanthas, with a large part of that coming from the lack of stirrups which makes it harder for the armored down to lean and stay stable.  I'm assuming this is where agility comes in, but I have never seen this occur with the state of mind where I knew what that person's class was.

However.  I think it's odd that the demand for hands-free riding is there when the 'dismount for combat' rule has been in place for this long.  This almost seems like an argument for convenience.

...

Most of this seems like arguments for convenience.  That's what I'm calling rangers now.  The convenient guild.

I won't buy the argument that Zalanthan cavalry is 'supposed' to be primitive when it by no practical means is. When people can ride all the way across the world without giving a damn and actually fight better in the saddle than they do on foot, you're either wrong about cavalry being primitive in Zalanthas, or it hasn't ever actually been implemented.

If Zalanthan cavalry isn't meant to be primitive, ride is fine and buffing warrior ride isn't a bad idea.

If Zalanthan cavalry is meant to be primitive, the answer to the thread's question is 'yes' and we can nerf rangers by proxy simply by making ride less strong than it is.

Branch the weapon skills earlier some I guess, that'd make things tons more interesting.

Anti mounted combat stuff would be interesting and nice. But I'd be in favour of small end costs for riding in the wilderness that are lower or don't exist for rangers. It'd adjust threat and risk out there, especially if spears and unseating people did some anti cavalrying. It's not like people have to travel very far any more.

Eh, no.  Because you're talking about making entire units of people better at it just because.

A ranger fighting better on the mount that he rides across the known is being used as justification for -everyone- to be able to ride better from the saddle even if they spend most of their time in a brown aba fighting in a sparring ring.  That doesn't mesh.

When cavalry is talked about, you're talking about the cavalry charge.  Which does not exist in game.  Multiple rangers using charge and trample doesn't work well.  Hence why cavalry, as an in-game entity, does not exist.

Now you can argue that three rangers using their ability to fight better from the saddle is acting as cavalry, except that they generally still lose to the equivalent skilled warrior who is dismounted solely due to it still being melee prowess, the realm of the warrior.  That has, from what I've seen, remained the case.

So again, it goes back to the mounted archer.  That is viable, and it works, but requires coordination.

Now you can argue about the distances people go while mounted...but this is not currently a ranger-only symptom, so I'm unsure what relevance it has.  Warriors can still ride, and ride well enough to not have problems, even...they just don't generally fight mounted.


Also...the negatives to combat while mounted used to be incredibly heavy.  So much so that there was a complaint that at least rangers should be able to fight mounted as primitive cavalry.  I'm sure if you searched for the threads, you'd find them.  The way things are is pretty much the result of how players wanted it.  I don't think anyone suffers as badly as everyone did back at that time, it was pretty brutal.

Quote from: Riev on January 03, 2016, 02:34:10 PM

QuoteRanger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat

From the helpfiles.

"Some moderate skill with weapons" means, in this case, "exactly as good with weapons as a non-branched warrior".

Having the ability to raise a weapon skill to advanced vs master is a pretty big difference.

Being able to polearm people in the face is a gigantic different.

Vs animal and vs human is also a big difference.

Mount vs unmounted is also a big difference.

Rangers are not as melee capable as you think.

Quote from: Majikal on January 03, 2016, 05:04:14 PM

Quote from: Riev on January 03, 2016, 02:34:10 PM

QuoteRanger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat

From the helpfiles.

"Some moderate skill with weapons" means, in this case, "exactly as good with weapons as a non-branched warrior".

Having the ability to raise a weapon skill to advanced vs master is a pretty big difference.

Being able to polearm people in the face is a gigantic different.

Vs animal and vs human is also a big difference.

Mount vs unmounted is also a big difference.

Rangers are not as melee capable as you think.

The whole discussion of the last two pages is how while theoretically there is a big difference there, in practice it doesn't exist.

QuoteRangers are not as melee capable as you think.

I do not know the exact science as to why, because numbers look similar, but in experience, this is very true.  It's being made out as if ranger vs warrior in melee is close.  And it's not.  Nowhere near it.

In response to RGS: my high agility pcs have had a much easier time with riding than my non. Perhaps I'm wrong. Still. I think you all are making mountains out of molehills.

QuoteI think you all are making mountains out of molehills.

+1

Change is coming. You can not stop it. So maybe try contributing to making the changes good, instead of casually dismissing any idea someone puts forward.

I'm not casually dismissing anything, I'm pointing out why the ideas presented, generally, are lacking in either insight or forethought.

But I will agree with you.  Non-rangers, indeed, are not rangers.

Edited to add:  And there have been several proposed changes that I've agreed with, as well.  Because I'm selective about it, and conservative, rather than gung-ho 'root out everything and make it all awesome' does not mean I'm casually dismissing change.
Edited again to add:

And I feel the need to reiterate again, but we'll try it in a different way.  If we were to suddenly have all the code done to switch to a classless system where you selected skills, I'm pretty certain there would be a huge rush of minor variations to the ranger class, as it currently is.  This is not because the other classes need buffing.  It is because the skillset is appealing to a broader set of players, because a large portion of the playerbase enjoys their time outside the city.  Trying to shuffle things around based off of the comparison that people have to enjoying their time outside the city more than inside the city is in fact not 'fixing' much of anything.  At most, I think some of the tweaks suggested in this thread do a pretty ample job of fixing things up.  It is some of the more drastic suggestions that I think not only don't fix anything since nothing is currently really 'broken', but is in fact a very good way of potentially mucking things up.

Do not try to 'fix' things that aren't broken (disclaimer:  Remember that I acknowledged some of the things that are broken), and accept the very evident fact that we like leaving the city because there is danger.  If you want the inside of the city to be more dangerous, then we need more people agreeing that the city is where to be for it.  When you see more assassins playing as assassins, more burglars playing as burglars, more pickpockets playing as pickpockets, instead of those classes being picked then being tossed into Byn-like surroundings because we have decided that combat is the end-all-be-all of success and enjoyment, then the city will be a richer place for it.  When we have more people crammed together fighting for interests rather than clans having to scramble to do everything outside the city, then the city will be a richer place for it.  When there are guard forces that make the requirement for stealth, the city will be a richer place for it.  When crime is able to effectively combat NPC law enforcement, the city will be a richer place for it.

I am completely okay with the PC population of the game leaning towards ranger.  It makes sense, when pretty much everything has been pushed towards being done outside the city.  We've cut down on in-city clans, we've cut down on in-city intrigue, we've run plots that constantly require travel.  The last several-month RPT was a peak of activity because it brought everyone close together, then threw a plot in the middle of it with in-city conflict that was amazing.  And then it just...went away.  So yes.  Ranger away, but stop asserting that because we've moved everything outside the city, the suffering of in-city classes is fixed by making them all more ranger.  This has a lot less to do with skillsets that can indeed use some tweaking, and a lot more to do with where the bulk of the game is lying right now.

Its an interesting theory, but I don't agree.

Most shit happens outside of cities. This is not to say things don't happen inside the city, just that on a regular basis things happen outside of cities. Its been this way for years.

I think the idea that people are just playing rangers because things happen outside of cities is missing the point. Mostly people play rangers because you can pick certain extended sub-guilds, and be very useful and good in any situation, inside the city or out. Now that said, will you be as good as other city classes? No, not quite, but certainly still very good, and much better than any other class outside its specialization.

This means that if things reversed and more skill based action was occurring inside the city(as opposed to more social/political backstabbing which is much more common), people would still play rangers and get the best of both worlds.  

On a side note, while I don't see people brutally murdering each other hack and slash style in the streets, I think still plenty going on in the city right now. There is still a lot of visible crime, deaths, corruption and betrayal.  

Making citystealth and wildstealth 4 separate skills would strengthen city sneaks while weakening superstealth rangers 'cause they have a thief subguild or whatever. It just means rangers would be as citystealthy as their subguild.

Quote from: Case on January 04, 2016, 01:59:23 AM
Making citystealth and wildstealth 4 separate skills would strengthen city sneaks while weakening superstealth rangers 'cause they have a thief subguild or whatever. It just means rangers would be as citystealthy as their subguild.

+1

I'm okay with scan being both city and wilderness.  Even though, perhaps, they're also different skills...  But you shouldn't have any class that's great at stealth in both settings. 

Quote from: Case on January 04, 2016, 01:59:23 AM
Making citystealth and wildstealth 4 separate skills would strengthen city sneaks while weakening superstealth rangers 'cause they have a thief subguild or whatever. It just means rangers would be as citystealthy as their subguild.

At some point in the past it used to be this way -- Sanvean posted that a pickpocket choosing hunter would get city hunt or something along those lines, but not wilderness sneak.  Somewhat more recently this changed, so now you get cross-environmental stealth skills instead.

Rangers capping at advanced weapon skills is hardly a nerf when most people get stuck in Journeyman.
It would satisfy the people who are upset about warrior weapon skills being matched, I think.

I had a thought that it might be nice if warriors (and warriors only) had an easier time advancing their weapon skills than they currently do.  Maybe they could get tiny skillbumps for each day they live, a practice command that exercised the currently-wielded weapon, or perhaps the rare skill-up from a successful hit.  Whatever.

That way if you were a non-warrior and you wanted to get good, you might be better off finding an actual warrior to train with and use teach on you, thereby making the warrior guild a bit more attractive as a support role in that sense as well.

More casual thought on this topic today.  Decided I'd be completely content with mixing some ranger skills with warriors, and overall reducing ranger combat effectiveness (i.e. removal of parry?), if there were a simultaneous move towards larger detriments to the outdoors.  I disagree with most of the ideas so far, because as noted I am generally resistant to change, particularly in areas where I do not feel the weakness that others are pointing to.  However, if we shift -everything- towards that wilderness capability, we could make the ranger less about combat, and more about survivalism, and something more oriented towards supporting those better at combat than someone just as good at a different kind of combat.

-Make sandstorms harsher, not just a way to get lost.  However, have this be negated/minimized by appropriate clothing, not a ranger skill.  Have a ranger skill of shelter-crafting, starting with personal shelters and moving up to larger ones.
--Change the weather command so that weather is determined 1 or 2 'time periods' before it happens.  Make weather sense part of direction sense, and make only ranger get it to master, with other subguilds getting it to at most advanced.  Make this allow them to discern weather patterns and see what's coming ahead of time, so that they can help their buddies hunker down if need be.
--Remove Direction Sense from warriors.

-Make forage food better.  Extend it to trapping, so that you can snare small virtual lizards and various desert/scrub beasties that can be cooked for a real hearty meal.  We've had discussion about returning traps for hunting to the ranger.  Instead of implementing the skill, just make forage food more valuable and more exclusive.

-Change ride as suggested to make it more viable for warriors (lower skill required for mounted combat.  Not sure about the charge, though).  Lower mount endurance, make high level ride lower movement cost of follower's mounts, or some other group-boon.

-Give listen...some sort of wilderness utility?  Something?  Right now it's pretty much a city-skill.  This could, honestly, be removed from rangers altogether, with this line of thinking.

Things of that nature.  Notice the theme here is 'Okay, give people what they want as far as other classes, but further specialize the ranger in return, to solidify the need for at least one in a group'.  At the same time, make it so that having 5 rangers traveling around is inefficient, due to their weakened combat.  They can survive alone just fine.  They can hunt just fine.  As a hunter, they are more than capable.  But in terms of military, they fall very short compared to a warrior, while the warrior is likewise very dependent on having a good unit to facilitate their prowess.

Of course all this requires coding.  But that's kind of where I think classes are at.  Blurring them all together makes for less variety and specialization, which is not generally a good thing in a class-based system.  But I -am- trying to think of ways that things could be mixed up in a way that promotes your changes but also maintains that 'specialness' of the wilderness master/experienced survivalist, and makes it a strong supporting role for clans instead of primary role, to boot.

Or this could all be completely retarded, since I've just been playing a lot of Long Dark.  But I was thinking about it and felt like sharing.  So take that!

Weather sense is kind of a thing you can already do by watching storm patterns in IG areas.

Shelter-crafting is interesting, and I like it. Make small half-tents that give a bonus to resting on, and masters could make bigger ones you can enter maybe. Have it take a good while, and require carrying the extra weight of materials. Maybe give them a limited life span, like torches.

I haven't played a food forage PC in a while, but I remember it being a huge help in saving money. I don't think it's weak.
You can even make coin off of it.

I'm not sure on how I feel a ride change would go.

Storm..... patterns? What pattern exactly?

As a general rule areas should be subject a specific weather state. And at varying times it should be either 'slightly better' or 'slightly worse' I mean thats just one of things I guess. It makes sense in my head sorry if it sounds confusing or some other shit.

Just speculation
Sandstorms roll into/out of areas. Day1 is clear. Day 2 is gritty. Day 3-5 is tremendous Day 6 is gritty. Days 7 Is clear.

I like the direction you're going, Armaddict. If we're going to continue with a class-based system, each class should have its own very specific specialties. If you're playing a Merchant, Coin and Crafting is your specialty. If you're a warrior, straight up fighting and taking a beating. Assassins, subterfuge and shadow striking. Rangers? Outdoor suitability in any weather condition or beast population.

Things of that nature. Thats why I struggle with the idea of the increased melee skills a ranger has, because if you ever ask "Why warrior, when I could ranger this character" then the classes are too similar. "Why mainline melee combat when I can mainline melee AND ranged". Make it more that your ranger could be "comparatively" as decent as a Warrior in combat but it takes a LOT longer, or bases itself more off the offense/defense of the class.

Really, can someone explain to me why someone who PRIMARILY in the Arm Universe is fighting scrabs, and jozhals, and carru and spiders (read: primarily) branches the ability to use their weapon to counter-move and counter-strike humanoids?

"The winds are picking up in this area, but the sands will stay settled."
"The winds are picking up in this area, and conditions will be taking a turn for the worse."
"The storm will start to break soon."

So on and so forth.  Yes, you can learn these patterns over time.  I'm saying make it so that a Ranger can observe it directly.  Have them have the heads up, 'a few hours' in game ahead of time.

Eh.  Probably no bueno.  Like I said, I've been playing Long Dark where it is just you and the elements in survivor mode, and it made me think of the 'easiness' of outside the gates right now.  With complaints such as this, it made me think 'sure, change it up a bit.  But make outside the gates more inhospitable by far, and make the ranger the thing that is weaker, but actually needed out there.'

Makes them very relevant outside the gates, still capable of solo/indy hunting, and promotes others staying in the city unless they're in a caravan/group.

But hey, I'm still fine with how things are as is, so *shrug* meh!

Quote from: Riev on January 05, 2016, 12:56:53 PM
I like the direction you're going, Armaddict. If we're going to continue with a class-based system, each class should have its own very specific specialties. If you're playing a Merchant, Coin and Crafting is your specialty. If you're a warrior, straight up fighting and taking a beating. Assassins, subterfuge and shadow striking. Rangers? Outdoor suitability in any weather condition or beast population.

Things of that nature. Thats why I struggle with the idea of the increased melee skills a ranger has, because if you ever ask "Why warrior, when I could ranger this character" then the classes are too similar. "Why mainline melee combat when I can mainline melee AND ranged". Make it more that your ranger could be "comparatively" as decent as a Warrior in combat but it takes a LOT longer, or bases itself more off the offense/defense of the class.

Really, can someone explain to me why someone who PRIMARILY in the Arm Universe is fighting scrabs, and jozhals, and carru and spiders (read: primarily) branches the ability to use their weapon to counter-move and counter-strike humanoids?

Surely there are some creatures with parry-able attacks. Surely. Right? Am I wrong?

I'm not all that invested in this discussion, but taking parry completely away from rangers seems weird when in my mind, there ARE attacks that can be parried that come from non-humanoids. I don't care if the proficiency is lowered, but taking it away altogether seems silly.

I was contemplating parry removal as well, but decided against it, though it did lead me to the 'What about listen, though?' line of thought.  It seemed like too drastic of a change.  But all of these changes are pretty drastic, because the discussion has gone towards 'everything is weak except ranger'...which is just very untrue, it's just that rangers do very well in the wilderness, and are very utilitarian to have around for in-city clans since most activity takes you outside the city.  People argue that subguilds can be taken to make rangers stronger inside the city as well, which makes me kind of furrow my brows and ask 'So....just like any other class, using a subguild to augment it makes it better at other things.'  I'm curious why assassin/outdoorsman gets no love.

Also, because this is irritating me.  Why is there the insinuation that warrior combat skills are somehow a detriment?  People are talking about 'oh, but it has a delay'...as if having things to do to press the attack in melee is somehow detrimental.  Yeah.  Maybe at 2 days played.  After training?  No.

Parry-
Sure, other classes get it.  Usually a very long time into their career.  Warriors start with it.  Piddling at the beginning, this is the skill that they quickly max and branch into other useful skills that get to acceptably high levels.  By that time, it is also the skill that allows warriors to be the only class to take a big hit, and have justification in thinking 'Whoa, that was a lucky hit.'  Anyone else who takes a big hit pre-parry has to immediately acknowledge that that kind of hit will probably happen again and start trying to bug out.  With the flee changes, that's sometimes scary.  Likewise, parry is also the skill that, because it rises quickly, allows you to make other attacks that give you a delay and not worry that said delay will lock you out of needing to escape.

Kick-
The ability to just...do damage.  Some delay, but after training it is relatively risk free.  No good for holding someone in place, but a pair of good warriors working -together- puts this to good use.  Do not understate how strong it is to be able to throw 8-15 damage out, once you work on this skill.  It's not a small deal.

Bash-
While this is improperly and strongly set to height, that hardly takes away what this skill is.  You don't want to bash giants, obviously, but with work, this skill stops failing.  If everyone in the game trained to max this out and everyone had it, it would lose its utility for dwarves.  Luckily that is never the case.  It does reach a point that even without a shield, it doesn't fail often.  And the delay it incurs on the target is real.  It is (or was) longer than the delay incurred by being charged by a mounted rider.

Disarm-
The risk of dropping your weapon steadily falls.  It has the shortest delay of any combat-oriented command in the game, including kill.  Warriors literally used this as their initiation move for a few years, because of it, but it stopped when the ability to drop your weapon was added despite it being relatively small risk.  Even if you drop your weapon, such is really only a big 'oh nooooo' when you're using a two handed weapon.  'Oh, they just draw another weapon.'  I've never seen a mentality where you steadily and consistently remove your opponent's ability to defend and attack looked down on for such a silly reason.  Yes.  They do draw another weapon.  Even if they're holding knives all over their person, this is still you pressing a serious advantage that both gives you short periods of time of your combat advantage being made larger, and lowers the amount of time your opponent can count on sticking around in the engagement, even if they are superior in weapon skills to you by a small-mediocre amount. 

Calling these lackluster is like calling ranger archery lackluster because it starts with high stamina cost and doesn't do enough damage.  Develop it and they become very strong tools that very firmly secure the warrior's position atop the pedestal of combat.  Defeating them -requires- the other classes to use gimmick shenanigans that you, atop your pedestal, should see coming and prepare for, i.e. Archery, backstab, and poison.  If any of those gimmick shenanigans fail or you hesitate or etc, and you find yourself locked in battle with that strong warrior...you now have Walter pointing a 1911 in your face.  "A world...of pain."

Anyway.  I felt like putting that out there.  Because I really am okay with things as is.  With that, and having good archery and throw to boot, as well as augmentation with subguilds to make them more versatile than just the combat...I feel like the idea that warriors are somehow fucked right now is exaggerating just weeeee bit.

Warriors are just used for the combative nature of Rangers as a counterpoint. I flipping love warriors and probably half my PCs are that guild. Again, they are a counterpoint to the melee capabilities of an outdoor ranged master.

We could talk about how assassins are supposed to be the masters of close range unseen combat, but I think warriors with Sneak/Bash got that covered. We could talk about the idea that a magicker could waste the crap out of a ranger with preparation, but thats obvious. Guilds don't need to be -balanced- compared to others, I think they just need to be specialized. Pickpocket/Burglar being combined is great and all, but Rangers are not as specialized as it would seem, they're the broad utility class because they can do almost anything in the game. Which doesn't specialize them to outdoor combat, which I would think they COULD. Hell, drop their parry to a lower cap and give all rangers tentmaking. I'd be for that. That would feel like a step in the right direction.


But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

Quote from: Riev on January 05, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
Warriors are just used for the combative nature of Rangers as a counterpoint. I flipping love warriors and probably half my PCs are that guild. Again, they are a counterpoint to the melee capabilities of an outdoor ranged master.

We could talk about how assassins are supposed to be the masters of close range unseen combat, but I think warriors with Sneak/Bash got that covered. We could talk about the idea that a magicker could waste the crap out of a ranger with preparation, but thats obvious. Guilds don't need to be -balanced- compared to others, I think they just need to be specialized. Pickpocket/Burglar being combined is great and all, but Rangers are not as specialized as it would seem, they're the broad utility class because they can do almost anything in the game. Which doesn't specialize them to outdoor combat, which I would think they COULD. Hell, drop their parry to a lower cap and give all rangers tentmaking. I'd be for that. That would feel like a step in the right direction.


But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

Ranger quit is like 50% of the reason I pick rangers.

They're the parent friendly class.  (So damn convenient when my 3 year old attempts one of her 1 am heists of the fridge).  If I had use OOC quit every time I quit out staff would have quiet a few questions about me and perhaps the insomnia my children and I share.

Not a derail (related to OP):

What I like about rangers (besides Wilderness Quit) is that they have all these neat little craft skills, which keep you busy during the off-hours (and some are actually useful).  I was only partly joking about pickpockets getting master floristry -- after all they get to master this other skill which is pretty surprising.  I suspect the economy of the game couldn't handle it, though, without some serious thought put into the idea of giving other guilds little flavor craft skills.

I also wish there were a 'Dumb Guild/Subguild Combinations' list out there.  I seem to always pick the dumb ones (i.e., where the guild already has most of the subguild's skills).  (That's just me being lazy, since the information is there.)

Quote from: hopeandsorrow on January 05, 2016, 02:50:49 PM

Quote from: Riev on January 05, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
Warriors are just used for the combative nature of Rangers as a counterpoint. I flipping love warriors and probably half my PCs are that guild. Again, they are a counterpoint to the melee capabilities of an outdoor ranged master.

We could talk about how assassins are supposed to be the masters of close range unseen combat, but I think warriors with Sneak/Bash got that covered. We could talk about the idea that a magicker could waste the crap out of a ranger with preparation, but thats obvious. Guilds don't need to be -balanced- compared to others, I think they just need to be specialized. Pickpocket/Burglar being combined is great and all, but Rangers are not as specialized as it would seem, they're the broad utility class because they can do almost anything in the game. Which doesn't specialize them to outdoor combat, which I would think they COULD. Hell, drop their parry to a lower cap and give all rangers tentmaking. I'd be for that. That would feel like a step in the right direction.


But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

Ranger quit is like 50% of the reason I pick rangers.

They're the parent friendly class.  (So damn convenient when my 3 year old attempts one of her 1 am heists of the fridge).  If I had use OOC quit every time I quit out staff would have quiet a few questions about me and perhaps the insomnia my children and I share.

I use quit OOC all the damn time for any damn excuse I can think of. Staff don't give a fuck. They should really make it usable multiple times in a row.


Armaddict, I could not disagree more about your perception of combat skills. It really seems like you're grasping at straws in your defense of them. But, I suppose that's obvious. I've already had my say on why I think the skills are lackluster.

Okies.  I'll warrior next.

I'm not sure how any of that is grasping at straws, but okay.

I think some of the perception that the combat skills that make up much of a warrior's unique skill list (kick, bash, disarm) are weak is that an inordinate amount of combat in Arm takes place mounted, where rangers are definitely superior. Outside of apartments or cells, any foot-fighting my warriors have done has been during RPTs where I don't dare risk kicking or bashing something lest the group combat code focuses on me and I need to flee in a hurry.

Disarm also (seemingly) has the weird quirk where using it at Master level is likely to fail than at Advanced, and the best thing to do is simply wait for other people to try and disarm you. This turns it from an active skill into a passive one.

Quote from: nauta on January 05, 2016, 03:09:25 PMr
I also wish there were a 'Dumb Guild/Subguild Combinations' list out there.  I seem to always pick the dumb ones (i.e., where the guild already has most of the subguild's skills).  (That's just me being lazy, since the information is there.)

Id like this, for the opposite reason. I always tend to pick guild/subguilds that seem to me like they'd be the "average guy/bumbling idiot" combination of skills. But turn out to actually be quite good.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 05, 2016, 06:29:06 PM
I think some of the perception that the combat skills that make up much of a warrior's unique skill list (kick, bash, disarm) are weak is that an inordinate amount of combat in Arm takes place mounted, where rangers are definitely superior. Outside of apartments or cells, any foot-fighting my warriors have done has been during RPTs where I don't dare risk kicking or bashing something lest the group combat code focuses on me and I need to flee in a hurry.

Places I use disarm / bash:
a) Sparring
b) Fights I have absolutely no fear of losing anyways.

On the other hand, archery is just the opposite where it can be used to win fights you have absolutely no chance of surviving in the melee.

I don't think that means that we have to turn RANGERS (a militarily originated term) into HUNTERS (a non-military term) completely. I would be fine if they were just taken down 10 or 15 points in the etwo / dual wield / parry areas to be more on line with assassins. They still remain distinctive, they remain balanced, and above all they remain PLAYABLE.

Though I would still simply prefer that, instead of nerfing rangers, other classes got a smidge more lurving. I'm also starting to rethink my original stance that rangers were as combat effective as warriors because it's only true of very high end warriors/rangers. For the first 30-40 days of your life, there's a noticable difference. And after that, you kind of deserve to be a bad-ass.

Also, I don't think it should be said that rangers can't melee because they already ranged so well. Any ranger who claims that they used "shoot" more than "kill" is a liar. Sure, using archery outdoors is insanely effective as PK tool, but I don't think it's necessarily a great argument for saying that rangers only need that. The problem with using PK as a yardstick is that, in the right scenario/circumstance, almost any class can merc any other class. That is to say, if you're the aggressor (and are being smart about it) you should have the upper hand. But having master archery, ride, sneak, and hide won't matter much when my warrior spots you first, covers 3 screens/leagues in 3 seconds IRL, and drops you to half health before you manage to flee. (Okay, it will probably help you flee and bandage back up, but you must admit that a non-ranger can catch a ranger with their pants down outdoors almost as easily as the other way around.)

The only balance issue I see is with mounted combat. Give warriors the ability to pull an opponent off their mount, and don't make mounted combat such a huge advantage for rangers.

Giving bash this utility, or a separate skill that branches off bash makes sense to me.

Or, at least give bash a defensive utility against charge, where the higher the skill levels give you a chance of dodging a charging mount.

Hell, I'd even love to see a chance for mounts to take damage or become incapacitated. Rangers should have to rely on their real hunting skills, not simply their ride skill and the giant rampaging lizard they are precariously perched upon.

I for one find ride quite ridiculous at higher levels. I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but that is definately how it seems. I mean sure people can learn to fight better while mounted sure. But not to the degree of: Lol my big ass sword bounced cos I was on foot. To lol I one shot a scrab on its leg with my sword cos I was mounted


Rant over.

Quote from: Hauwke on January 07, 2016, 07:15:10 AM
I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but ...

It's not just you. We call these manly men (and womenly women) rangers!

Quote from: roughneck on January 07, 2016, 06:55:26 AM
Give warriors the ability to pull an opponent off their mount, and don't make mounted combat such a huge advantage for rangers.

Giving bash this utility, or a separate skill that branches off bash makes sense to me.

This is a swell idea, and falls in line with "buff warrior, don't nerf Ranger." It would be great if bash could target mounted opponents. Maybe mounts give you a huge bash defense boost, so that it would really only become useful by high advanced bash.

On a side note, if you're a beefy warrior, you can usually disable a mount in 3-4 rounds... just saying. Not even sure if the ranger can stay mounted or flee his mount if you go that route, but it's definitely an option.

On a side-side note, there was a great 2nd hand story in the Song of Ice and Fire novels where a knight was sent to assassinate Bron, Tyrion's old quintessential merc pal. The knight, being knightly, decided to challenge Bron to a joust because it was honorable, and Bron had absolutely no training with a lance, which was a good bet. Except Bron aimed his unwieldly lance at his opponent's enormous horse instead of it's rider. Love that tactic.

Quote from: Hauwke on January 07, 2016, 07:15:10 AM
I for one find ride quite ridiculous at higher levels. I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but that is definately how it seems. I mean sure people can learn to fight better while mounted sure. But not to the degree of: Lol my big ass sword bounced cos I was on foot. To lol I one shot a scrab on its leg with my sword cos I was mounted


Rant over.

Mounted combat is historically pretty powerful.  Look at the Mongols or cavalry units in any medieval army.  That being said, warriors can and do get good at mounted combat.

Quote from: Riev on January 05, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

It really is the only reason I ever play them. These days extended subguilds cover 90% of skills that your main guild doesn't already have. If I wanted ranger quit without being a ranger? Nope. Shit out of luck.

Can't really argue for the realism of it either. Okay, they might be survival experts compared to merchants, and this is reflected by their skills, but being able to stump mages that can explode heads by thinking about it doesn't make sense.

Quit OOC is hardly a replacement for it. It's good once and you still have to use one of those dreaded quit wilderness rooms which if not already being used by some sorcerer are regularly being checked by desert elves.

Quote from: roughneck on January 07, 2016, 06:55:26 AM
The only balance issue I see is with mounted combat. Give warriors the ability to pull an opponent off their mount, and don't make mounted combat such a huge advantage for rangers.

Giving bash this utility, or a separate skill that branches off bash makes sense to me.

Or, at least give bash a defensive utility against charge, where the higher the skill levels give you a chance of dodging a charging mount.

QuoteThe rangy ranger riding the polka-dotted war beetle tries to charge you, but you punch the beetle in the face and and knock THEM down!

A polka-dotted war beetle curls up on the ground.

The rangy ranger falls to the ground.

Huh.  I never thought of attacking the mount...

Nerf attacking mounts.

Quote from: Refugee on January 07, 2016, 02:10:47 PM
Huh.  I never thought of attacking the mount...

That's ok.  Neither did any other aggro mob.

There are actually aggro mobs that will attack your mount - I wish it was a way more common occurrence.

Is my log where me and my trust beetle fight off a mob of [redacted] together going to be too much find-out-IC?

Man, what if bash COULD be used while mounted, and could knock another rider off? A little niche but the possibilities...

On at lest two occasions I got wtfpwned because they attacked my mount before my pc.

A mount rider isn't as scary people think, especially when you've got numbers.

One those situations was insanely fatal to that PC.

Quote from: Ender on January 07, 2016, 10:11:50 AM

Quote from: Hauwke on January 07, 2016, 07:15:10 AM
I for one find ride quite ridiculous at higher levels. I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but that is definately how it seems. I mean sure people can learn to fight better while mounted sure. But not to the degree of: Lol my big ass sword bounced cos I was on foot. To lol I one shot a scrab on its leg with my sword cos I was mounted


Rant over.

Mounted combat is historically pretty powerful.  Look at the Mongols or cavalry units in any medieval army.  That being said, warriors can and do get good at mounted combat.

Historically, pre-stirrup, shock cavalry were extremely rare. Where they did exist, they were still primarily armed with ranged weapons and charging into melee with a mass of infantry was very rare and only done when you had a huge formation of cavalry to work with.

I'm fine with master riders in Zalanthas being highly mobile and being able to fight while mounted without penalty. But any actual advantage being mounted brings to combat should be 100% mobility and nothing else.

If you make sure that's the case, you get rid of the need to take away one of the ranger's relative strengths by giving warriors high ride skill.

Shock cavalry = cavalry who charge in to enemy ranks. They were rare pre-stirrup because charging with a lance into a foot schlub risked you being lifted right back out of your saddle. Stirrups provided the means for the rider to A) stay in the saddle and B) transfer the weight and energy of the charging mount to the lance. However, Charge in Arm isn't the same as a real-life cavalry charge. You're explicitly running them over with your mount (who are much heavier and durable than horses, generally) instead of charging them with a lance.

Being mounted also provides a height advantage (in RL and in Arm) which translates to more damage dealt. So I disagree that the sole benefit of riding should be restricted to mobility.

Incidentally, do we know for sure whether stirrups do or do not exist in Zalanthas? I've always found the game a little ambiguous on the matter.

There's also the fact that historically, cavalry in real life did not used to charge atop massive insect-like dinosaurs beasts. Big difference between a horse and a inix.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 07, 2016, 04:49:18 PM
If you make sure that's the case, you get rid of the need to take away one of the ranger's relative strengths by giving warriors high ride skill.

I don't understand how rangers will be negatively effected by this?  Giving warriors better ride gives them the ability to actually be better cavalrymen, riding their giant lizards and beetles into battle, which is awesome.

Warriors should absolutely have the potential to get as good at ride as rangers.  No need to nerf anything.

Quote from: Ender on January 07, 2016, 05:15:31 PM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 07, 2016, 04:49:18 PM
If you make sure that's the case, you get rid of the need to take away one of the ranger's relative strengths by giving warriors high ride skill.

I don't understand how rangers will be negatively effected by this?  Giving warriors better ride gives them the ability to actually be better cavalrymen, riding their giant lizards and beetles into battle, which is awesome.

Warriors should absolutely have the potential to get as good at ride as rangers.  No need to nerf anything.

Maybe if we could split up the Ride skill. Right now it governs everything you can do with a mount (except breed them).

A Ranger should be better at being able to ride through rugged terrain and tame mounts. If there is a penalty to ranged combat while mounted (I don't think there is, just saying if there was), then rangers could be better at that. They'd also be decent (at the least) at mounted melee combat.

A Warrior should be the best (or at least as good as a ranger) at mounted melee combat.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 07, 2016, 05:20:40 PM

Quote from: Ender on January 07, 2016, 05:15:31 PM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 07, 2016, 04:49:18 PM
If you make sure that's the case, you get rid of the need to take away one of the ranger's relative strengths by giving warriors high ride skill.

I don't understand how rangers will be negatively effected by this?  Giving warriors better ride gives them the ability to actually be better cavalrymen, riding their giant lizards and beetles into battle, which is awesome.

Warriors should absolutely have the potential to get as good at ride as rangers.  No need to nerf anything.

Maybe if we could split up the Ride skill. Right now it governs everything you can do with a mount (except breed them).

A Ranger should be better at being able to ride through rugged terrain and tame mounts. If there is a penalty to ranged combat while mounted (I don't think there is, just saying if there was), then rangers could be better at that. They'd also be decent (at the least) at mounted melee combat.

A Warrior should be the best (or at least as good as a ranger) at mounted melee combat.

Meh, I don't see a need to complicate things further with more skills when we already have one that handles everything we need it to.

City ride vs. wilderness ride!  :D

Sure. But there's something to be said for retaining the specialization and uniqueness of the Guilds. The Ride Skill handles a lot of things (riding, mounted combat, mount taming, mount leading). I don't know if, as the Skill is currently constructed, we could make it so that Warriors were the equal to Rangers in one of those things (mounted combat) without also being the equal and everything else. I don't really think they should be equal in everything, but that's a debatable point.

Quote from: nauta on January 07, 2016, 05:32:47 PM
City ride vs. wilderness ride!  :D

snerk

Well, actually...

Quote from: nauta on January 07, 2016, 05:32:47 PM
City ride vs. wilderness ride!  :D

Isn't City Ride the skill for Aides, whores and f-mes?

Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 07, 2016, 05:34:10 PM
Sure. But there's something to be said for retaining the specialization and uniqueness of the Guilds. The Ride Skill handles a lot of things (riding, mounted combat, mount taming, mount leading). I don't know if, as the Skill is currently constructed, we could make it so that Warriors were the equal to Rangers in one of those things (mounted combat) without also being the equal and everything else. I don't really think they should be equal in everything, but that's a debatable point.

I would be fine with taming being it's own skill that branches off of ride.  One of the big issues with ride though is at a certain level it becomes seemingly impossible to fail making reaching master level of ride out of reach without failing taming of animals.  I'm not even sure if failing to tame an animal even counts as a ride failure as it pertains to getting better at the ride skill?

I always just took animals on bounding runs around the harshest terrains I could find, to get higher ride skill.

Then one day, at Advanced, I fell off and probably got attacked by a kryl or something.

I am this close to going all history nerd rage over the cavalry thing, you guys. Stahp D:

STIRRUPS ARE FOR PUSSIES!

- Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours

QuoteI don't understand how rangers will be negatively effected by this?  Giving warriors better ride gives them the ability to actually be better cavalrymen, riding their giant lizards and beetles into battle, which is awesome.

Because the original part that this part of the discussion came as a response to was not just allowing warriors to ride better, it was giving them charge as well, just by virtue of being a warrior, whereas the response was that where rangers are designed to be dependent on their mounts, warriors are not.

There have been numerous accessions to letting warriors get the mounted bonuses and hands free riding.  The specialization in mounted combat, on the other hand, should not go with it.

Warrior/mercenary gets no-hand ride, which is kinda weird.

Quote from: MeTekillot on January 07, 2016, 06:15:45 PM
Warrior/mercenary gets no-hand ride, which is kinda weird.

Anything/mercenary gets no-hands ride.  They have a lifted ride skill as the subguild information states.

Quote from: Malken on January 07, 2016, 06:12:36 PM
STIRRUPS ARE FOR PUSSIES!

- Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours

You mean having horses at all, right?

There is a remove kebab joke in here somewhere, I feel. Maybe remove dried strip of meat works?

Quote from: Patuk on January 07, 2016, 06:19:39 PM
You mean having horses at all, right?

There is a remove kebab joke in here somewhere, I feel. Maybe remove dried strip of meat works?

Yeah, it's a poorly executed Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman joke :-\

Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 07, 2016, 05:06:13 PM
Shock cavalry = cavalry who charge in to enemy ranks. They were rare pre-stirrup because charging with a lance into a foot schlub risked you being lifted right back out of your saddle. Stirrups provided the means for the rider to A) stay in the saddle and B) transfer the weight and energy of the charging mount to the lance. However, Charge in Arm isn't the same as a real-life cavalry charge. You're explicitly running them over with your mount (who are much heavier and durable than horses, generally) instead of charging them with a lance.

Being mounted also provides a height advantage (in RL and in Arm) which translates to more damage dealt. So I disagree that the sole benefit of riding should be restricted to mobility.

Incidentally, do we know for sure whether stirrups do or do not exist in Zalanthas? I've always found the game a little ambiguous on the matter.

I wouldn't take the echoes at face value. The image of massive Zalanthan mounts executing a "charge" by just ramming into soldiers and bowling them over with impunity, the soldiers apparently having no recourse, seems more vaudeville than anything else. As big and tough as beetles and inix are, I don't think they'd be willing to impale themselves on a pike or spear in order to literally run over enemy soldiers any more than horses are.

Anyway, you have real-world elephants to serve as your model if you think that's a better baseline than horses--but the mounted combat code probably needs to be seriously revamped if you actually want that to be the model.

Either way, there should be countermeasures available against mounted soldiers. Going into combat mounted should not necessarily be a dominant strategy. Frankly, it should be a matter of principle the late medieval European heavily armored knight does not have an equivalent in Armageddon. We should rip it out and kill it dead, not bend over backwards trying to justify why it exists where it shouldn't.

Pretty sure I've seen stirrups in-game in some descritions.  I remember it because I was wondering for a long time about whether I should use stirrups in my emotes and then I saw it.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on January 07, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
I wouldn't take the echoes at face value. The image of massive Zalanthan mounts executing a "charge" by just ramming into soldiers and bowling them over with impunity, the soldiers apparently having no recourse, seems more vaudeville than anything else. As big and tough as beetles and inix are, I don't think they'd be willing to impale themselves on a pike or spear in order to literally run over enemy soldiers any more than horses are.

I wish I could not take magick echoes at face value either, but I have to respect them anyway and roleplay around them.

Also pikes are too hard to branch so neither City-state has managed to filed pike formations yet.

Less facetiously, mounted combat in Zalanthas is not about cavalry formations charging infantry. It is overwhelming small units of cavalrymen being ambushed by (or ambushing) small numbers of foes. Mounted combat rates your ability to maneuver in that melee (with abrupt charges and tramples), stay in your saddle, and deliver damage.

Right now, Rangers the best at fighting in these mounted skirmishes. By rights, it should be warriors.

Nah, I did a search through all the logs of all my PCs and all I see are lots of different people emoting about stirrups.

I agree that a well-trained ranger should never be able to take a well-trained warrior in any kind of equal-standing, close-proximity combat. 

Quote from: Refugee on January 07, 2016, 06:56:51 PM
Nah, I did a search through all the logs of all my PCs and all I see are lots of different people emoting about stirrups.

(http://lazysundaymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HG2.jpeg)

Quote from: Refugee on January 07, 2016, 07:00:28 PM
I agree that a well-trained ranger should never be able to take a well-trained warrior in any kind of equal-standing, close-proximity combat. 

Do we have an actual test of this occurring?

Test server, put a mounted warrior of this skill with comparable other-skills next to a mounted ranger of this skill with comparable other-skills, and have them duke it out, and prove that one outright slaughters the other to the degree that's being referenced?  I'd accept that as the need.

The more I think about it, the more it really doesn't add up. If I'm a warrior who's devoted my life to close combat on the sands of Zalanthas, and who's life depends developing the skills and tactics to handle what I can expect to to encounter, the first time I see my ranger buddy charge and trample someone, using his inix and his few hours of ride training I am going to:
a) Develop a tactic for evading mounts, disabling mounts, or dismounting riders
b) Learn how to do it myself

On a separate point, the other thing I don't like about charge is that it's a skill, more than others, that is more about which player hits 'enter' on their keyboard fastest, rather than a reflection of skill.

As an anecdote for the discussion, around five years or more ago I played a 10 day human ranger that successfully solo hunted bahamets because of the coded advantages ride and certain mounts give you in combat.

Ranger is one of the few classes that I can enjoy from a coded standpoint because it's functional. I don't think ranger is OP, I think the other classes just suck a lotta balls.

Quote from: Is Friday on January 08, 2016, 09:54:51 AM
Ranger is one of the few classes that I can enjoy from a coded standpoint because it's functional. I don't think ranger is OP, I think the other classes just suck a lotta balls.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0vmsixfia1qcsp5b.gif)

Quote from: Ender on January 08, 2016, 10:03:21 AM
The biggest thing I don't understand is why a ranger, a ZERO karma class gets unlimited access to wilderness quit, but a non-ranger mul, or a nilazi, or a psionicist has to find a quit room.

If you have that kind of karma and you can't find a quit room, then you have bigger problems.

Quote from: Delirium on January 08, 2016, 10:04:19 AM

Quote from: Is Friday on January 08, 2016, 09:54:51 AM
Ranger is one of the few classes that I can enjoy from a coded standpoint because it's functional. I don't think ranger is OP, I think the other classes just suck a lotta balls.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0vmsixfia1qcsp5b.gif)

Agreed. It's the same reason I play rangers more than anything else. You never get bored, you really don't need anybody to help you, and you can handle pretty well any threat in the game one way or another.

Quote from: roughneck on January 08, 2016, 10:20:56 AM
Agreed. It's the same reason I play rangers more than anything else. You never get bored, you really don't need anybody to help you, and you can handle pretty well any threat in the game one way or another.

Rangers have a great balance of functionality.  They have craft skills for downtime, they have mobility skills that allows them to explore, they have a wide array of combat skills that allows for the player to put thought in how they'll go about approaching combat.  

They're all together a really well rounded class that provides a great mix of fun right out of the box and a lot of skill progression to keep the player interested in improving them.

This is what is lacking from warriors.  Warriors as a base class are lacking skills that help fill out downtime.  Honestly they should get skills like armor repair and bandage making, and I would argue that they should have weapon crafting skills branch from weapon skills themselves.

I split off some of that quit room/ability to quit chatter. It's marginally related to rangers, but it seems like a decent topic to discuss on its own, so why not. New one is here. (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50382.0.html)

moved.

I love rangers, they are just right. Maybe other guilds could use more oompfh?

OMFG, rangers are, hands down, the class, well, if you can suffer through skilling one up appropriately. Starting with parry is just amazing. You'd probably see fewer breeds IG if warriors could max ride. as it is breed/ranger is doable, but isn't an optimal combination in terms of status and stats. Still, great PCs have been breed/rangers, I think giving warriors master ride and maybe a little fucking direction sense would go a long way, in the long run, to adjust and change up things so that breeds would be fewer in number and warriors would actually not suck at being warriors. But they start with parry, yeah, that's a huge boost, they can kick or bash, PROVIDED YOUR OPPONENT ISN'T MOUNTED. They can disarm, but big deal, it's why I'm covered in sheaths, have fun with that dagger, fuckwit. That said, I think classes like Assassin, burgler, pickpocket could use some love too, and they've gotten some, but thinking of an assassin as a "city ranger" is just flat out wrong. They start with poisoning, but not brew, that's a recipe for suicide. Their weapon skills suck in comparison, but, they are very damn good at what they do. I just don't understand why rangers are so badass, and other classes are so totally focused.

You still have to take time to draw that weapon from the sheath, and there's a delay equipping it.

Long enough of a delay that your friendly warrior can easily disarm that weapon, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one...

And if he's skilled enough, he's also railing your shit in while he's disarming you. Good luck with that. That's why people don't generally fight people they're positive are warriors up close.

I'm curious if any of this is worth a sort of cavalry subguild.

Well I doubt it would help fix anything. Other than the whole warrior = shit ride

I mean what would you give them? Buffed ride and thats it?

I dunno.  Increased ride.  Charge.  Trample.  Maybe increased direction sense?

Master ride skill, master charge and trample, and either direction sense or piercing weapons. That's my stab at it.

Quote from: Hauwke on January 09, 2016, 10:23:22 PM
Well I doubt it would help fix anything. Other than the whole warrior = shit ride

I mean what would you give them? Buffed ride and thats it?

2hand ride, trample, and charge
armor repair
branch a weapon-crafting skill from weapon skills (maybe at Jman or advanced)
perhaps branch scan

Not that I've ever lived long enough to master ANY class.

I honesty feel that if you can keep a character alive the YEARS it takes to master a class, you shouldn't be glass ceiling-ed into no advancement.

It's almost like, Congrats, you're awesome at this particular skillset, but you're too stupid to put an arrow together heh.

scout

Shield_use
ride
direction sense
trample
archery/scan (I'd love archery but can see scan being more in line)

I'd take it for anything that wasn't a warrior/ranger. This is assuming warrior gets higher ride and direction sense. Again, I think trample should be removed from all the classes except rangers, and those with good animal rapport and adding to all the current sub-guilds with ride.

I think warriors should get hands-free ride, but if they want trample or charge they need to get a sub-guild. They can fight like a beast, but getting their beasts to help in a fight properly is ranger territory, in my opinion at least.

I don't think more subguilds is even close to the answer to fixing main-guilds. I like the ideas for a skill to dismount people. That would be sick as fuck.

Some people seem to be saying that "I pick ranger more than any other class, because of its utility". Which to me says "they get more useful skills, and are codedly decent at them, than other classes".

If one of the what... 6 main classes that we have is picked significantly more than the others, isn't that the definition of OP? I'd like the numbers, know I won't get them, but I'm sure the staff are able to find out how many in-game characters are of a certain skill-set.

And I'd like to bet that, based on my in game experience.... everyone is an assassin.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 10, 2016, 05:05:13 AM
I don't think more subguilds is even close to the answer to fixing main-guilds. I like the ideas for a skill to dismount people. That would be sick as fuck.

I could find some damn good use for that scout sub-guild though.

Anyways I don't think dismounting people should be a new skill, but an extension of another skill. If you master bash for example, then you should be able to use that knowledge and try to knock people off their mounts, whether on foot or mounted yourself.

On a side note, you should be able to try to kick doors downs based on skill and strength (think mining or cutting trees) but get insta crim-flagged. I know some people have suggested bashing doors down but kick needs love too, and it would make taking a sub-guild with kick more awesome. 

Guard needs to work better against running people.

It would be nice if guard also had a chance to work against fleeing people you were in combat with too. With extra attack applying first, and then there being a chance to block them from escaping.

I have to admit if warrior got even half these buffs then you could probably leave ranger alone. Warrior would be an awesome choice without touching ranger.  

Yeah, we've pretty much gone through every relationship in discussion and said 'Buff it.  Buff it.  Buff it.'

There was a time when there was actual argument about 'Why ranger?' with the only stated boon being desert quit, which people said wasn't worth it at the time.  It led to mounted combat.  It's funny how that pendulum swings.

We should make a separate thread for assassins.

ASSASSINS some random ideas:

They should get a flee skill that makes them go invisible, like that gith everyone hates.

Assassins need actual traps. Like so: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47721.0.html  (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47721.0.html)

They should get caltrops to drop that do light dmg to hp and movement-points.

They should get max climb.  They should start with sap and brew. They should have bandaging to max.

Backstab should be something you can use with any non-bludgening weapon.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 10, 2016, 04:27:52 PM
ASSASSINS some random ideas:

They should get a flee skill that makes them go invisible, like that gith everyone hates.

Assassins need actual traps. Like so: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47721.0.html  (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47721.0.html)

They should get caltrops to drop that do light dmg to hp and movement-points.

They should get max climb.  They should start with sap and brew. They should have bandaging to max.

Backstab should be something you can use with any non-bludgening weapon.

Officially per a request interaction, that gith is a coded bug of some kind that they haven't been able to properly identify "why" he does that.

Funny, per a request interaction, its "working as intended"

2015-03-27 09:25:21AM (289 days ago)
What's up with the Gith disappearing act? It's super creepy when a Gith is knocked down on the round and suddenly all combat stops and the crickets in the dunes are just chirping at us. Is it a script that kicks in on them, or is there some kind of bug? Should I report it as a bug?
Other by Nyr
2015-03-27 09:51:28AM (289 days ago)


Your Question request has been resolved.

It is a bug.  We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually.

Nyr
Producer
Armageddon Staff

It is a bug.  We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually.


"You can explain it away IC" means "working as intended" to me.

Gith carry portable holes.

Quote from: Riev on January 10, 2016, 07:48:57 PM
It is a bug.  We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually.


"You can explain it away IC" means "working as intended" to me.

Then your definition of "you can explain it away IC" is vastly skewed. What I read is, "you can explain it away ICly, but it is a bug, and thus is a product of code that we can and will eventually fix."

Which is exactly what he says. "We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually."

Quote from: Saellyn on January 10, 2016, 09:27:24 PM

Quote from: Riev on January 10, 2016, 07:48:57 PM
It is a bug.  We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually.


"You can explain it away IC" means "working as intended" to me.

Then your definition of "you can explain it away IC" is vastly skewed. What I read is, "you can explain it away ICly, but it is a bug, and thus is a product of code that we can and will eventually fix."

Which is exactly what he says. "We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually."

Quote from: Riev on January 10, 2016, 07:48:57 PM
It is a bug.  We haven't fixed it because it can be explained away IC, but we will get around to it eventually.


"You can explain it away IC" means "working as intended" to me.

Not really sure why one gith vanishing is a huge ordeal anyways.

He does it mid-combat. He literally just vanishes into thin air.

It's jarring, and annoying, and I've searched for him -everywhere- and I don't think he's hiding, so much as -gone-.

Wow, I don't even want to know how this derail happened, I just wanted to make my joke:

PC gith should totally quit ooc during battles in honor of this gith!

I don't think you can quit ooc mid-fight.

Flee self, w. W. W . W. E. N. S. Diagonally triangle. Quit ooc im that gith man!

Quote from: Saellyn on January 11, 2016, 01:40:37 AM
I don't think you can quit ooc mid-fight.

Gith racial ability.

Stinky worn out gith pants are in high demand.