Vampires and Tribunal

[Tantangel]

The only instances where I've seen people kill Vamps were: Invokers, BMGs, pugiling Warriors, Healers and Good Clerics. So if you really think he's a problem that much, just roll up one of those. Warriors would probably be easiest to do since the giant races have lower experience penalties as compared to some of the better races used more towards mage classes. Not to mention you can get easy flight and enlarge things farely easily. So it's kind of obvious how Balinor killed him. even if he didn't use some of those things. Pugiling helped him out immensely. With a Good Cleric, think about what Ray of Truth does for affects, and how it works. Healers have a lot of anti-undead spells, and shouldn't ever die really to a Vamp unless caught completely unaware. BMG should probably have one of the easiest times with a Vamp with the ability to wield holy weapons AND have a dancing blade holy weapon along with a few other things that go towards them. And Invokers who aren't Gnomes should have a fun time as well with certain key spells.

So what's up with all this talk about ganging? People should manage to be doing this solo rather than large scaled groups. All the person needs to really know is the time of when to attack, where they should attack, and what key skills/spells they should use in combat. Someone who's been playing 3 months or more should be able to figure that out at least.

[Warpnow]

Umm...yea, in the past week I have seen Tribunals gang a number of outlaws...and even a few nonwanted/nonoutlaws.

Ganging just cuz you can't win a fight is one thing...but if you're an outlaw...and this guy sworn to capture and kill you basically til your condead...you have to kill him.

When a tribunal outlaws someone...they are saying they are going to catch them over and over and over and over. So...when they outlaw someone, they open themselves to tactics which would otherwise be trashy.

Especially with recent ganging actibity FROM tribunal with its 5 or so members, I would have to say I approve of ganging their strongest person back.

Ganging with good rp in it isn't trashy, its a plot. Like the townspeople ganging up to drive frankenstein out of town.

[WarriorCleric]

So what's up with all this talk about ganging? People should manage to be doing this solo rather than large scaled groups. All the person needs to really know is the time of when to attack' date=' where they should attack, and what key skills/spells they should use in combat. Someone who's been playing 3 months or more should be able to figure that out at least.[/quote']

Everyone will say this, but noone will give any examples that are worth a damn. Too many people are saying things like this, or like 'Well, duh, if you're a berserker, dual two axes when your fighting an imp on the fourth day of winter... fool' ;)' but they don't say why... I don't know why, I'm a ****ing newbie! So all I have is a bunch of people talking down to me because I'm new, and I don't know better. Noone is saying, dualing two axes give you greater offense, at the cost of defence. See, you don't even have to say that, you could say that it's because of the read out of the weapons, which can be found, albeit a little cryptically, at help weapon. Acording to the rules of the forum, that is alloud. I admit, I don't give people much concrete information, but atleast I tell them to read the correct helpfiles, or send them down the right path, maybe I leave a sour taste in their mouth, but they aren't getting stonewalled. I really, really want people to learn things for themselves, but I also think that since our playbase forces the need for a quick learning curve, we have to prime the pump so to speak.

As far as ganging, I don't see how it perpetuates it'self if it's based on skill differences. If you get two people to 50, who are playing their characters correctly(rp wise), but it's their first 50's. They just so happend to pick a path that goes against a current powerhouse, why shouldn't they group up to take him down? It stands behind their rp, and they are obviously not skilled enough to take him out, and I know their is a rule saying 'You are not to just allow yourself to die.' So if Marty is running up and down, kicking *** because he is one hell of a player, is it excesive for two people who have already proven they can't take him one on one to take him two on one? And Notice I used excesive, because according to help rules, the time when pk's are punished are when they are excesive.

hell, from help pk

Group killing is legal, groups of any size can attack another group.

However, this should be the exception and not the norm. Group killing

beneath the higher ranks (above 40) is discouraged and should be used

sparingly. Those who group kill on a continuous basis will be punished.

Sure, it says a group can attack another group, but notice the 'any size' line. How is a two on one any different than a group of five attacking a group of two? It isn't, Infact, since every group vs group will get down to a n on one, it's the same thing or worse. Just when it become's excesive. And if someone who knows what he is doing gets ganged, and gets all pissy and starts gang the people he has continually killed solo, then that is excessive, and he should be punished. (Note, I'm pretty sure Mart doesn't gang, infact I think he has apologized for an accidental, though one where he had every right to, gang on a criminal) When ganging perpetuates ganging, then someone along the line didn't need to gang(be it the first or the second), and just got pissy, but thats the Imms job to keep tabs on, not the playerbase, so prayer forum then and the imms will watch.

Now I completely agree that people should, if they can, take out someone solo, but if it can't be done, they learn nothing by 'throwing themselves on their spears' (phrase from the old days of cabal warfare, eh guys?) All they learn is how to reequip, atleast with doubling up on someone they are learning group dynamics.

And on a sarcastic note, all of you who have now spoken against ganging are on a mental list, and I will be brining this thread back up when any of you mention wanting more realism, or lack of rp behind a kill.

WC

[Ex-D&Der]

There are ways to kill a vampire, and I don't know all of them, but that doesn't mean it should be a simple matter to kill every vampire. It's kind of disingenuous for people who have not killed a given vampire to say it should be easy to do so. I don't see Martineius being killed by many people, so why don't we propose a simple rule of thumb for the forum. If you haven't killed someone, don't go on about how easy it should be. If you have, then gloat all you want, but until then, just stuff it. And no, you don't have to say that you killed him--just leave it unstated.

Now, in terms of ganging, it's lame. But it usually happens for some reason--there's usually an identifiable cause. In this case, Tribunals have been given a lot of new powers. And the whole vampire rp thing is weird and pretty much requires Watchers to become outlaws, at which point it's open season on them for every Tribunal and militia member. There's only so much you can expect a typical player to take in terms of getting multikilled naked and spending all their time reequipping fruitlessly until they resort to the obvious and group up. If you don't want that to happen, think about what might be causing it in terms of the new powers given to Tribunal, or the rp plot, or do IMM intervention in game.

And no, I haven't been playing lately, so I haven't been a part of it.

[delfytheelfy]

Additionally' date=' delfy, why are you jumping in their fight?[/quote']

The same reason two milita jumped in our fight? I dunno, there are always reasons. Sometimes people need a taste of their own medecine.

[Psycho Child]

Personaly I take it as a compliment when people gang up to take me down.

[Nekky]

I think ganging or not ganging comes down to how much pride you've got. I don't think it's the case that people gang because they can't beat someone alone, I think it's more because they don't know for sure if they can, and when a situation opens to really nail the person they take it. This, to me, demonstrates that someone is just out for the PK any way they can get it, and they have no real interest in improving their skills and risking themselves.

I remember a post recently in which Despiser (I think) was saying that it's quite easy to go into most PKs and not die if you really want to. But if you want the reward, you have to risk your life sometimes. Ganging is a bad thing because it overthrows the carefully planned class balance, and provides opportunists with an easy way to get the kill, often without facing the risk of death to themselves. You get neither a learning experience from it, nor the satisfaction and exhileration of taking out a hated and feared opponent by your own hand.

I don't totally disapprove of ganging in cabal war situations, but I still think it should be an exception rather than a norm. It's been widely discussed by Imms and players alike for the entirety of FL's existence and the conclusion that is most often arrived at is this.

You will probably always be 'allowed' to gang, as in you won't get banned or smitten for it.

I want to ask that despite being allowed to take the easy option, people show a bit of pride in themselves and their characters and PK on their own. If you're in a cabal and you're in the position where you could gang, get on your cabal chat and say you want to fight someone alone, or ask your cabal mates to back off. The fact is, certain rule-lawyers and boundary-pushers will always generate RP reasons in which it's acceptable to gang, but try and look at it from the perspective of the gangee.

If you want the ultimate rewards from PK, you have to accept that it will mean your arse sometimes. You just have to stick at it and keep striving, or else the motto for PK in FL might as well be:

'When the going gets tough, just gang the bastard'

[Warpnow]

Heh, I think if someone has made you lose more than 5 lives, and there is evidence that he will try to do so again, ganging becomes a little more acceptable

Heh, and if some of those lives were from them ganging you...

[WarriorCleric]

If people don't know for sure if they can? Then in that case it would be excesive, because they haven't shown they can't, and the imms would step in. But if you can't, and you've died to the same person over and over again, what do you learn from just getting raped over and over again? Nothing. I don't care who you are, you learn nothing from getting three or four rounded.

Ganging is a bad thing when it's not needed for the win. But when it is, it's the way the game goes, hell the person being ganged from an honest gang should be flattered, it took two people to kill him. And people most certainly learn something from being in a gang pk, they learn support or lead activities which they will need when they start doing cabal raids. It's like easing into something, thats why people start swimming in the shallow end, thats why training wheels exist for bikes.

And I completely agree that ganging should be the exception, and I don't think anyone here has said it should be the norm. But people keep painting this negative picture about it.

I keep saying it and I'll say it again, people learn nothing from being dominated completely. If Ted keeps slaughtering me over and over again, and I stand absolutely no chance against him, why shouldn't I team up with someone to kill him? It is a pk mud, people should expect to die, and that means the skilled people aswell. Also, people should do what they can to survive. Me and Mary still have to find Ted, we still have to fight to the best of our ability, we have to work with each other, we can't panic and spread out, we have to stick together. We have to develope a plan and stick to to it.

I think a lot of the problem is people aren't differeniating between trash gang bangs and the ones that are alright. If two people group up and spam commands, thats just garbage. It's garbage when someone does it alone, and it's garbage when they do it with a buddy. It shows no skill at all, just blind luck and overwhelming force. That kind of ganging is trash and people learn nothing from it, and should be punished, but thats no different than a level 34 dk just running around killing everyone in his pk range. He's peeked, other people are still weak. But no one is saying 34 dks who pk are sleazy, it's just how some of them do it. And the ones who do it that way get punished.

When I first goto 50, I was fighting against warmasters who were kicking my ***. They would slaughter me, decisive victories every time, I wouldn't last more than 4 rounds. You learn nothing in a 20 second fight except how bad you really are. So what happened? One of them, the leader, took pity on me, he told me that I would not be a worthy foe, so until I came to him he wouldn't come to me. The others kept it up, whacking me for fun. So what did I do? I grouped up with a buddy, and we went to find those bastards. It wasn't until I went out with someone else that I learned how to survive. It wasn't until I had help to survive ten or so rounds that I learned what I was capable doing. I learned which group tactics work on who in what sitituation, which helped with cabal warfare later. Once I got to the point of standing on my own two feet, I stopped grouping. I did this all with a Vampire. What came of it? I got complimented, Titled, and eldered because of my progress and what I was able to do. Was I trash? Did what I do equate to garabge? I certainly learned an awful lot, I certainly felt satisfied with my performance, I got my exhileration from killing people who multikilled me(they had every right to multikill, no complaint about that), and I got rewarded for it, as did the people I grouped with. Personally aswell, those were some of the most rewarding pks I've had. I was an *** hair away from quiting the mud because I couldn't do anything, and bam! I got those guys who ****ed me good. It felt great! Would I ever resort to that kind of group pking again? Not likely. I've learned what I needed to learn from it, but I wouldn't have learned it any other way.

I'm saying people are way to negative towards the idea of group pks. Sure, their are going to be a lot of trashy group pks, but their are even more trashy non-group pks.

WC

[grannym4n]

Hella right, I'm not alone here.

*Heading to class, so I can't add to it. But I don't believe I have to as WC helped out a great deal.

[Chayesh]

The same reason two milita jumped in our fight? I dunno' date=' there are always reasons. Sometimes people need a taste of their own medecine.[/quote']

Riiiight...so two militia jumping into a 3 vs 1 to even the odds is justification for you to jump into a 1 vs 1?

I think your math skills are on the fritz there.

"I dunno" is not the answer to have.

[Balinor]

As far as the original topic goes, regarding vampires being in Tribunal... vampires are not as easy as you all think. Even you, Granny, with your "elite knowledge" of vampires (which is a crock, to boot). Just on the first page, six of the people who posted, as far as I know, have never played a vampire (at least successfully). So when you get a vampire, have seen, mastered and then tinkered with all the abilities they get, your opinion can become valid. But until then, this is really all just speculation, the same speculation that arises every time a new vampire reaches 50 and has any sort of success. Just because you've seen the POWER of a vampire's abilities, does not mean you know anything about them. You don't know what it takes to acheive/master that power, and you don't know what the inherrant weaknesses are. So, as I said, when you've played a vampire to 50 and been successful, then you can come back and talk. This is all just uneducated, misinformed guesswork.

[WarriorCleric]

An interest statistic was posted by viri quite a while ago, he asked how many vampires their had been. To which he gave the answer (it was over 50 at that time), then he asked how many vampires do you remember for being monsters?

WC

[Hegemon]

Ah, yes. Sage words of wisdom from Balinor.

[Warpnow]

heh. No, Bali.

Yes, I will continue.

Thank you.

There are -always- more than one view point that must ascertained to come to an unbiased decision. One of those view points should be from those who have played vampires, but the viewpoint of those SEEING and FIGHTING vampires is just as valid. Because, while they may not know what its like fully to be fighting a vampire, they and they alone know what their experience was like, and there is saying I like, "None of us is as smart as all of us".

And I don't remember your vamp being a beast, Bali.

Just like you know things Granny doesn't, Granny knows thing you don't. Trust me. The mud is very complicated and I would wager no one...except its coders, knows everything about it. And I would wager they learn something every once and a while.

[Balinor]

heh. No, Bali.

Yes, I will continue.

Thank you.

There are -always- more than one view point that must ascertained to come to an unbiased decision. One of those view points should be from those who have played vampires, but the viewpoint of those SEEING and FIGHTING vampires is just as valid. Because, while they may not know what its like fully to be fighting a vampire, they and they alone know what their experience was like, and there is saying I like, "None of us is as smart as all of us".

And I don't remember your vamp being a beast, Bali.

Just like you know things Granny doesn't, Granny knows thing you don't. Trust me. The mud is very complicated and I would wager no one...except its coders, knows everything about it. And I would wager they learn something every once and a while.

You made several very large misconceptions as to what I meant in my post.

In no sense did I claim my vampire was anything but pathetic. However, I did do a VERY large bit of exploring with him into vampire abilities, which was the whole purpose in making him.

There are things that you simply cannot learn through the code. If you could learn everything there is to know about the MUD through the words and numbers that compose it, then there would be no need for beta testing of races/classes. You have to have experience on both ends, which is something you cannot boast.

For example. Let's take a look at a cleric's divine intervention. While the effects might not be apparent in combat to their opponent, they can be discovered by their user. Anyone ever had a Church cleric and used divine intervention? It is not at all apparent to your opponent, but it does have its uses. So I say again. Until you have experience on BOTH sides of the field, your opinion is not worth one whit more than speculation.

[grannym4n]

I'm still gonna claim I know a lot about vampires. I've fought them, I've killed them. So...Bali, there you're being a hypocrite by saying I have no knowledge because how would you know?

But I won't disagree with all your points. I agree it's not the vampire class, that's what I've been saying(it's why I've been saying you can beat them, same as you). It's the person playing the vampire, the player is obviously skilled and he'd probably dominate with any class.

[Goomf]

As far as the original topic goes' date=' regarding vampires being in Tribunal... vampires are not as easy as you all think. Even you, Granny, with your "elite knowledge" of vampires (which is a crock, to boot). Just on the first page, six of the people who posted, as far as I know, have never played a vampire (at least successfully). So when you get a vampire, have seen, mastered and then tinkered with all the abilities they get, your opinion can become valid. But until then, this is really all just speculation, the same speculation that arises every time a new vampire reaches 50 and has any sort of success. Just because you've seen the POWER of a vampire's abilities, does not mean you know anything about them. You don't know what it takes to acheive/master that power, and you don't know what the inherrant weaknesses are. So, as I said, when you've played a vampire to 50 and been successful, then you can come back and talk. This is all just uneducated, misinformed guesswork.[/quote']

I've played a vamp and I think I successfully mastered most of the skills. And let me tell you, vamps are nearly impossible to kill if you don't know what you're doing. The qclass is supremely buffed up, and in the hands of a skilled player, should be able to beat any class/player.

Also, I'm just responding to prove balinor wrong and nettle his pubic hairs.

[Mister E]

I think vamps r a cinch. Get a class with stake, find the sleeping vamp, end its miserable existance right there. How much easier could it be?

[Raargant]

WC, I have NO problem with newbies ganging on occassion.

My problem is the fact that these are players who have been here for a long time, some for upwards of 4-5 years, who are simply advocating to gang if you can't win. Now that gets my goat a bit, that's all.

[crackwilly21]

I think its a wicked power combo, but it can be defeated.

[Goomf]

Why shouldn't they gang if they can't win? I don't see the problem here...if there is a strong character who is beating on everyone, what right does he have to keep on it? People SHOULD gang him if he won't die. What possible reason would you say not to? That it doesn't constitute fair gameplay? That it motivates people 'to gang?' Oh, and the second part is a radical presumption. Please explain.

[Chayesh]

Why shouldn't they gang if they can't win? I don't see the problem here...if there is a strong character who is beating on everyone' date=' what right does he have to keep on it? People SHOULD gang him if he won't die. What possible reason would you say not to? That it doesn't constitute fair gameplay? That it motivates people 'to gang?' Oh, and the second part is a radical presumption. Please explain.[/quote']

So, "Do as I say, but not as I do"? Newer players to the MUD see a gang of pinns running off to slay one character. This easily breeds more of the same at all different levels rather than teaching that ganging is except in the rarest of circumstances extremely lame.

PK is about learning. What do you learn about PK when you group with 4 others to take someone down? That if we don't win we better bring 5 next time? And why shouldn't somebody owning the playerbase continue to get to do so? Do valedictorians get given F's so the rest of the class can feel better about themselves?

[Warpnow]

I'm still gonna claim I know a lot about vampires. I've fought them, I've killed them. So...Bali, there you're being a hypocrite by saying I have no knowledge because how would you know?

But I won't disagree with all your points. I agree it's not the vampire class, that's what I've been saying(it's why I've been saying you can beat them, same as you). It's the person playing the vampire, the player is obviously skilled and he'd probably dominate with any class.

No joke, Martineius is a beast.

Bali, just like there are things you can't learn from the code, there are a number things you are not going to notice inside the game, as well, for what they really are.

I don't advocating ganging just cuz some guy is beating you...that isnt my prolem. However, if I was outlawed by Martineius...and he had already caught/killed me 5+ times with amazing EASE(Ie, another try won't help) I would definitely consider a gang, because getting owned like that every day you log on doesn't teach you anything and we all want to play.

[Goomf]

Why shouldn't they gang if they can't win? I don't see the problem here...if there is a strong character who is beating on everyone, what right does he have to keep on it? People SHOULD gang him if he won't die. What possible reason would you say not to? That it doesn't constitute fair gameplay? That it motivates people 'to gang?' Oh, and the second part is a radical presumption. Please explain.