Geas

My 2 cents:

From the perspective of a PO with no chars in sathos or crussies, take a guess...

1. WATCHTOWERS

Seem necessary. If crusaders are supposed to be hallway monitors, there's little else they can do to protect the whole of Forostar. However, they make a lot of things a pain in the ass. Without rift, Crussies know where you're going a lot of the time. If you try to sneak by, you don't know "if" it saw you or not. If you walk in front of it... well, you know they see you, and you just might have a crossbow bolt sticking out of your throat. Worth destroying? If you're lightly armoured, hell no. Bolt to the neck. Done. Want a valley of burning towers? Add a lock, then I'll finally see what that crussie crossbowman's entrails look like (that's a joke, who'd be that stupid to put a pickable lock on your watchtower? this isn't your motel room)

Moreover, simply roleplaying with other chars can be difficult. Sidenote: Kudos to the current crussies for not going after my char EVERYTIME he's sighted though. In any case, it is difficult to RP freely when you're paranoid about whether or not you were sighted, and you don't want people you associate with to be shat on. You don't want to team, or talk, or stay around long, or go into an enclosed area because another team just might be on their way to lay a can of whoop ass.

2. UNICORNS

Aren't much an issue for lightly armoured chars who have some flexibility. Pain in the ass to track with unicorns. Nor can they climb trees. Nor are they hard to cripple (heh heh, traps). And they're big targets for arrows. I've been on the receiving end of unicorns several times btw.

3. OVERPOWERED?

As we've seen, the Asrals got trounced, for whatever reason. The Crusade was not aided by any other guild. Does that mean they're overpowered? Hard to say based only on that. Yes, Asral guildhall's a death trap. Yes, more active crussies seem to be more experienced than the active Asrals.

4. ON STAYING AROUND AND TALKING

For certain characters, their only advantage is surprise. Sticking around in a room where the other char knows your there? You lose your advantage, nor do you want to be critted by a shiny two handed lance - and maybe a unicorn. I love talking, but being around chars that can crit my char in no time is like sticking in a room with a random person with a loaded gun. Stick around? Maybe he has buddies on the way. I'm gonna get the hell out of there.

5. LAST THOUGHTS

I "do" agree with the notion stated above that talking will usually get you unexpected results. My char has been on the end of some unexpected mercy in the past. For me, the main thing is the watchtowers inasmuch as they limit rp, esp for non-rifters. There is no land bridge from Amward to the tundra. If a char simply wants to fights gobbos, he or she MUST trespass Arborean lands. Talking to people, you need to stay away from chokepoints, and that doesn't give you much mobility.

6. LAST LAST THOUGHTS ON ADHOMINEMS

Please, no more on this thread. This is a game, and we're supposed to be "playing" with each other.


please and thank you

"I only want to play if I'm the strongest." ?

It should not matter, since you are suppsoed to enjoy RP even if you are on the losing side. (as if winning/losing mattered in an RP game)

As for balance, a single guy can tip the scale with this Pbase.

Apart from that, it's fun to read all the false statements about how things/work are.

Cheers

arxthas wrote:
As for balance, a single guy can tip the scale with this Pbase.

Fully agree. And that is why I believe it is important that players in those positions act carefuly and consider the impact they can have in their daily play. Just look back at uber big players like Korsario, Yegerfin or Cemoch and the way they behaved towards others.

arxthas wrote: Apart from that, it's fun to read all the false statements about how things/work are.

Like? Care to enlighten us?

Hi all.

Just wanted to point out that I never mentioned crusaders were overpowered.

My point was about a guild with STRICT RP rules, being powerful in the MUD. Because Yeger could negotiate, Talron could negotiate, Korsario could negotiate, Shadowca could negotiate...

But in my years of playing GEAS, never saw a crusader do so. Not because the player didn't want so but... because they can't. At least with an evil enemy... and if you're fighting crusaders, trust me, your aura may be pitchblack pretty soon.

So stop discussing about crusaders being overpowered. It never made sense to discuss such things and it makes everyone angry

Discuss about flexibility. Discuss about a wizard popping in and telling your guild to stop attacking your enemies for a week or so

ferranifer wrote:Like? Care to enlighten us?

Nope

It's more of a warning to anyone reading the thread and assume what is said there is true.

arxthas wrote:

ferranifer wrote:Like? Care to enlighten us?

Nope

It's more of a warning to anyone reading the thread and assume what is said there is true.

So basically, you're just trolling.

I honestly don't get why people say that others get angry about these discussions or even if people do actually get angry about them. When you put things like balance on the table, there is going to be difference of opinions and arguments. That's the whole point of it, isn't it? If people start ringing alarm bells whenever someone states its point of view in this or that way, then no discussion is ever going to go anywhere. Discussion must stay civilized yes, but let's not wear the moderator hat at every glimpse of irony or sarcasm.

Regarding the discussion, I said I did not want to take part on it because I believe the topic has been covered in other threats recently. But regardless, I'll just state my opinion again, starting with saying I fully agree with Jezz's last post about the roleplaying limitations and background of the Crusader guild. If, and only if, the Crusaders are overpowering the game's environment at the moment, then maybe those in control might wanna take a step back and a look at it. Mind that this does not just include Luminier, but also those that define what the background and roleplay of the Crusade is like. Also, if, and only if, the reason they're overpowering is a combination of a big character with strong abilities, then maybe the abilities should be revised, or how they scale with bigger characters, or the player of the character could be mindful of the advantage.

Please, note I am not saying that Crusader abilities are OP. As I said in my previous posts, all the info I have comes from other players. They made a lot of sense when they explained them to me, and I haven't really read any good arguments about why they weren't right yet.

As to why having a discussion about balance is in place, well, obviously Luminier wants to address the issue, so why not? I presume he is concerned about the balance itself or the playerbase perception of it's lack thereof, so why not talking about it?

ferranifer wrote: So basically, you're just trolling.

Erm, no? Why would I be trolling? Did you forget to read that I was putting up a warning? Or wouldn't spreading rumours actually be more trolling than telling people to think for themselves? You make absolutely no sense at all.

arxthas wrote:

ferranifer wrote: So basically, you're just trolling.

Erm, no? Why would I be trolling? Did you forget to read that I was putting up a warning? Or wouldn't spreading rumours actually be more trolling than telling people to think for themselves? You make absolutely no sense at all.

How are the contents of this thread spreading rumours? You drop by and question the credibility of this thread, but refuse to actualy specify what or where. Then when asked to clarify you just shrug it off, throw another stone and hide the hand again. What were you trying to achieve? What exactly doesn't make sense here?

ferranifer wrote:How are the contents of this thread spreading rumours? You drop by and question the credibility of this thread, but refuse to actualy specify what or where.

Nope, I didn't drop by and question the credibility of this thread.. Perhaps some statements that were made. I said that there is some things which are surely untrue and opted for people to question what they read (since I might be right that it's just rumours, in case you don't believe me when I say that some of it is for sure untrue).

The reason I don't specify why is that while doing that I would have to reveal why it isn't true, thus posting in-game spoilers on an OOC forum. Is all of this really so hard to figure out?

There is a nasty trend going on right now about revealing more and more about the game in order to support your argument and I personally dislike it.

ferranifer wrote: Then when asked to clarify you just shrug it off, throw another stone and hide the hand again.

Thanks for the review on my behaviour. It's good to get that us-against-them thinking into the forum and talking about people's behaviour rather than the topic. But ok, since you want it this way.. I can run along with it. Not that I like it.

So, as for your behaviour.. why not try to question stuff before you make assumptions? Critizing both my behaviour and asking the question to why I did it is a little... inconsistent, don't you think? Shouldn't you first find out the answer and only then critize it once you know?

ferranifer wrote: What were you trying to achieve? What exactly doesn't make sense here?

What is that trying to achieve? The same thing people normally would try to achieve when there are false rumours spreading around. Making people question what they read and ponder about what assumptions they should do.

Now you two are both off-topic and arguing.


Back to the topic please.

Thank you.

I might as well add to my previous post a question to Jezz (from the older post that originated this thread):

Jezz wrote: Code a guild with amazing pvp powers and equip, and restrict their RP to: "you're not with me, I kill you" and sooner or later a player will take the "king of the crown" place, making impossible for the rest to play.

What makes it "impossible" to play? Because Crusaders (I assume that's the "super guild" you are talking about) actually affect your available options? Because they have an impact? Maybe it is your original ideas about what should be possible to play and not that are wrong. Maybe they even have a true advantage? Oh no, the inequal oppurtunity? Ever played chess? Black starts slightly worse off (at least that's what you would hear about practical chances from a tournament player). That doesn't make the game bad, it just changes the way you think about the game. It changes the way your set up your strategy. That is what you have.

The fact that large powerful organisations (actually I don't believe the Crusade is, but let's pretend that for a while) affecting your life in ways that are truly inconvenient/bad to you is a good sign of realism. The fact that you can't just ignore everything around you and play whatever by yourself is just good. It means that stuff matters and that people aren't walking around in disconnected bubbles and not interacting with eachother in terms where stuff that matters is at stake.

Let me just add that I don't even think the Crusaders are that overpowered (yes, maybe they are more powerful, but that's not overpowered.. and I am one of the supports of downgrading lots of stuff [not because of power reasons, but for RP reasons that I think makes more sense]). It's more about player count on either side. And some intelligence, diplomatic skills, etc. If you really wanna be that picky about getting the best PvP chances.. Personally I just roleplay than consider my PvP strength. If I get the lower hand, I will enjoy playing the weak. If I get to upper hand, I will enjoy playing the strong. My general opinion is that if you can only enjoy one of those, something is wrong.

Final addition, let me just add that your "king of the crown" is very much sometimes how reality works. Another plus.

arxthas wrote:What makes it "impossible" to play? Because Crusaders (I assume that's the "super guild" you are talking about) actually affect your available options? Because they have an impact? Maybe it is your original ideas about what should be possible to play and not that are wrong. Maybe they even have a true advantage? Oh no, the inequal oppurtunity? Ever played chess? Black starts slightly worse off (at least that's what you would hear about practical chances from a tournament player). That doesn't make the game bad, it just changes the way you think about the game. It changes the way your set up your strategy. That is what you have.

Arxthas, I never said it makes ME impossible to play. My point was that it makes impossible for a crusader to do so, in RP terms, at least with an evil character. It looks like you're trying to lead every post you write into a somehow agressive direction (argument wise) and I won't enter there. If you would know me or my character, you'd know already that he cares little about what goes against him, as that is the reason he trains and thinks harder about how to overcome problems. But I'm stubborn. Let's not force the rest of players to be so...

The rest of your post is mainly another hit on the "overpowered topic" and I already said I won't comment on that matter but trust me when I say it has never been something that stopped me from playing or trying to achive my IC goals.

As an example, as I have written before, let's think about negotiations between shaos and sathos, legios and rangers, asrals and taniels, and so on. They COULD negotiate, while crusaders CAN'T, in most cases, do so.

THAT is the dangerous part that I'm trying to point out. The dangerous part not for _me_ (god knows I have fought in the past against "groups" far more powerful than what crusaders have ever been), but for the MUD, which is what really matters.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood you then somewhere. But which is the guild "amazing pvp powers and equip,"? And who are "the rest" for whom the first mentioned make it impossible to play? I assumed you meant the Crusaders, but maybe there's another guild you were thinking about?

jezz wrote: It looks like you're trying to lead every post you write into a somehow agressive direction (argument wise) and I won't enter there....

I'm sorry you think so, but I am really not trying that. I appreciate the attempt to discuss things. I just get annoyed when someone blurts out I'm troll because he/she didn't understand or think my note was "valid" enough to post.

I like a good open-minded discussion with a high ceiling. The attempt to problematize the problem around "Wars" is IMHO a good intention by Luminier, but even that post was shot down by some quite personal attacks, questioning his true intentions and implying some sort of hidden agende rather than just discussing the bloody topic. I think the "war" discussion is good because it actually tried to solve a problem that "us" the players have. A problem that only hurts us and are caused by us. (Same thing for this topic)

So hopefully you can trust me when I say that I like the discussions. I am not trying to be aggressive or anything - but I will debate forcefully for what I believe is best for the MUD. I think it is my right to do so, but I will also never degrade into name-calling.

The Crusade as led by Luminier has actually become more reasonable than in the past few months. I don't see them as a problem anymore, really.

Just a quick, and last interlude from me.

Arxthas, my apologies for calling you a troll.

I don't think the game is really balanced at all and I disagree on statements that Crusaders are not overpowered.

I think Crusaders are overpowered.

I also think that miracles are overpowered. Actually, the way miracles work especially for trained characters, is much more overpowered than the Crusader abilities. My opinion.

I also think that spells/magic are/is overpowered. Though it requires more efforts to train and learn than i.e. miracles.

However, it also all depends on the point of view.

If you look at it from another point of view, there are no really "overpowered" features and abilities. Just some are extremely useful, whereas others are not so.

Because after all, these are really features, and features should be useful. What I dislike is when features become detrimental to the game, or others wanting or not wanting to play.

Old, powertrained characters are extremely strong.

What about a combination like this - watchtower reporting, mount teleportation to an enemy, dragonlance insta-crits to (almost) instant kills by powertrained characters? Wouldn't it be understandable when it is said that this is overpowered?

I myself think so, for three reasons. Two of which are not related to Crusaders:

- Mounts do not tire. Bug in my book. Mounts should tire.

- The combat code seems to be odd and make parrying certain moves close to impossible in certain situations, which if true, may be a bug in my book. Either related to mounts, or to the dragonlance/trained character, but I actually think that this is mostly made worse by non-tiring mounts. So again, this should be fixed. And mounts should not be a free way to escape. Mounts should also fall down to the ground sometimes. Really, I think when mounts will tire, many problems will go away suddenly and I am sure that all those who rely on this strategy will complain.

That the dragonlance is awesome is fine of course. On a related issue, I think the critical hits in the game are way too effective in general and too decisive. There isn't a lot of fun for the loser if the fight is over in 2 seconds.

It may be true that the strategy described above does not occur that often, because there are not many players active playing Crusaders who have sufficiently trained to use this strategy effectively (or actually, anyone who uses a mount). But again, this is a much larger issue of powertrained characters vs. weaker characters in general.

The powertrained characters can always make more use of existing options and strategies to the point where the less trained character has no chance at all. That's where "help fair play" kicks in, but to no real effect - because players have stopped playing irregardless. (Plus it would involve wizard intervention, which isn't ideal. It would be better to reduce the negative impact characters can exert over other players, by reducing the available tools here.)

- Watchtowers working to report in just one way (Sathos and other guilds don't have it that easy to get the same information, like a Crusader who can be who off, whereas the sighted enemy can be who off too, yet is reported by the Tower NPC). Watchtowers are really really bad. I think it would be better to give the Crusaders more abilities instead, even some way of locate-ability, and in return nerf the watchtowers. There are so many examples of how they affect the game negatively.

Here was one interesting suggestion to instead make them more powerful:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1761

By making them more like fortifications with more guards. And probably exclusive only to Crusaders. Mostly like make them unremovable. Which I am still curious how this will make more players want to play Sathos ...

@Zehren then wrote a great counter-example:

I find the argument pertaining to Sathonites' strength ignores all the non-sathonite enemies the crusade might acquire.

And I can name three different characters who got insta-critted to death by the towers because one Crusader made them enemies, then was inactive for a while. In other words, that player made a decision to have some enemies, and then NPCs killed those enemies. Sure, IC there should be no difference between PC and NPCs, but please, how is it fair at all to ACTIVE players when semi-active player can affect them that much?

At least one should be actively playing, rather than be allowed to affect active players in such a way when not playing at all.

Then another example of watchtowers being too useful is when they can report the description of the character from a far away room, which is in itself a violation of game mechanics - because playercharacters can not discern such details on their own when looking to faraway places (in the distance from the top of the tower, to an adjacent room).

More examples could be made but at the end of the day some people will always disagree, often enough when they are affected by it (either in a good way, or a bad way).

Sure it may be fun for those who sit on top of the food chain, but for those on the recieving end it is just killing their fun. Which of course works both ways.

There is no feature parity in the game.

I myself don't think the game is balanced very well but noone wants to be nerfed, so I don't think much will change.

Last but not least, don't get worked up too much, as this is just my opinion.

lanyara wrote:I also think that spells/magic are/is overpowered. Though it requires more efforts to train and learn than i.e. miracles.

If you do consider any spells to be overpowered then please inform us
about it. We would need a description of the spell, the name of the
one using it, and it wouldn't hurt if we knew why you consider it to be
overpowered. I think an ooc mail to one of the Mage chars, or a pm to
me would work best. I think the other players of Mage chars would agree
with me if I said that we don't mind having another look at those spells
that others perceive as being overpowered.

I think the other players of Mage chars would agree
with me if I said that we don't mind having another look at those spells
that others perceive as being overpowered.

I completely agree.

lanyara wrote: - Mounts do not tire. Bug in my book. Mounts should tire.

- The combat code seems to be odd and make parrying certain moves close to impossible in certain situations, which if true, may be a bug in my book. Either related to mounts, or to the dragonlance/trained character, but I actually think that this is mostly made worse by non-tiring mounts. So again, this should be fixed. And mounts should not be a free way to escape. Mounts should also fall down to the ground sometimes. Really, I think when mounts will tire, many problems will go away suddenly and I am sure that all those who rely on this strategy will complain.

my observations are different

I thought that most mounts could easily bypass blocks so I think that is fair but....

One guild has a mythical beast for a mount that has minor limitations.
*shrug*

I do not question why the unicorn is so strong. It's a more powerful warhorse.
It has the same limitations as other mounts. (terrain, cost)
The main difference is it's the best.
If I was given a choice on mounts it is hands down the unicorn.


I ask myself not "why the unicorn is so strong", I ask myself "why are there mythical beast mounts."

you must accept that you will be at a major disadvantage in 50+% (accessible areas) of Forostar. Don't forget that they also have towers to see you so then they know when you are at a major disadvantage.

Granted, this really isn't my problem anymore but I speak from experience.