Comparing me to Behrens? That's a new one. Thanks. That's petty.
Make Halloween Madness great again
23 minutes ago, mya said:
Someone teach me how to tell newbie to get 1400 mana on their invoker. Hit/damroll is easy due to Onyx/opal.
Spell saves is "layers", as is AC.
But mana, how the hell I give a reference for mana?
When you can harness the power to cast x spell y times, you will be strong enough.
Edited
37 minutes ago, mya said:
Someone teach me how to tell newbie to get 1400 mana on their invoker. Hit/damroll is easy due to Onyx/opal.
Spell saves is "layers", as is AC.
But mana, how the hell I give a reference for mana?
Newbie chat.
23 minutes ago, Celerity said:
When you can harness the power to cast x spell y times, you will be strong enough.
But what spelll..... I couldn't recall a single 100 mana spell. Or a 10 mana one.
On the topic of Foxx's post, having played every Qrace/class and remembering what it was like the first time I succeeded was a great feeling (especially as a Psion). Would allowing people during HM to automatically do it take away from the game (which is what I feel this discussion is really about), I am not sure. I am against the tattooes and auto leader, maybe cabal inductions, but only up to V or T at most.
HM is a magical time of year, where you can explore race/class combos easily and PK your head off. I think we should focus instead on improving on what HM is, and find a way to make it better. Honestly that is what I thought the post was going to be about (not that Foxx's idea is bad, but not what I had in mind when I initially clicked to read it). I was hoping it was going to be ideas about adding more to HM than just a PK fest. Have leaderboards or games go on. King of the hill, capture the flag, etc. Right now I see HM as just pure chaos, and it gets really boring for me after about fifteen minutes.
I think part of the concern with allowing Qrace/classes automatically during HM is that it cheapens the experience for the player. Unfortunately people always assume they know what is in their best interest, and want it all, but sometimes it is less about the goal and more about the journey. Which is what I think the staff is trying to protect. For instance my first lich came before there was a quest and I was involved in the elf ninja baby (I forget her name) quest line. I really worked at the role I was playing and in the end was elated at my rewards. Since then, getting a lich is not as exciting as that first time. Would you honestly want that taken away from you?
On the mana charge example...Maybe they should figure it out? This is the generation of online guides and walkthroughs.
39 minutes ago, Cephirus said:
On the topic of Foxx's post, having played every Qrace/class and remembering what it was like the first time I succeeded was a great feeling (especially as a Psion).... Would you honestly want that taken away from you?
Here I think is the critical difference in our perspectives - I don't see anything being taken away. In fact, as Tass mentioned, I'd see it more as an incentive than a spoiler. You've played the majority of the qthings; I haven't, and as I mentioned above, I probably never will play many of them, and part of that is due simply to my ignorance of what it is I'd be trying for. I do not have enough spare time these days to be willing to sink dozens of hours into a character in the hope that I'll both get what I'm aiming for and that I'll actually enjoy playing it once I do - and there tends to be little sympathy for people who stop playing a qclass or qrace because they're not having fun with it; the barrage of "you should've stuck with it longer" responses tend to ignore that not all of us can or want to be spending all their gaming time here and that we want to be having fun while we are here, not feeling like we're putting in hours at work to hopefully earn fun down the road. I remember what it was like to spend a day playing FL for 10 hours, but I'm never going to do that again - I'm not going to sink hundreds of hours into experimenting with different characters just to try out classes. Years back? Sure. Today? Not a chance.
Now, maybe this just means I shouldn't ever get to know what these things are like to play because I'm not willing to sink in the time. That is a fair position to take, and one I used to back in the day. But I think that, for a game that's single biggest problem by far is lack of players, locking significant chunks of the game behind a time sink is counter-productive. An hour a day is a lot of time to devote to something, but it is too often treated as the required minimum by many.
Capture the flag would be awesome...
Paladins would be OP though...
14 minutes ago, Ambroas said:
Paladins would be OP though...
I think they've earned a day of it. ;)
15 years later and I still haven't played 2 qclasses. I can assure you it's not favoritism and we work double for anything rp orientated. I don't like the idea of releasing qclass stuff as it takes away from the games mystique. Cabal stuff below elder would be fine by me.
18 hours ago, Celerity said:
The major issue about talking about mechanics in game is that they can only be generalized in an RP setting. It is blatantly OOC to go into any mechanical detail in character. I suppose somebody could get around this by posting a tome standardizing physical and magical power levels and creating an in-game list of in-game effects, so we could say yeah, it gives +10 hit/dam and haste and still be IC. :P
You can kind of get around this using OOC references veiled in an IC way. "It, uh, provides three levels of your ability to hit something and..." -- but again, veiled OOC is still OOC and immersion-breaking. At which point, we should just be talking about it on the forum. Even if we had an IC standard for sharing mechanics, it would still be pretty OOC because this stuff should be the greatest secrets of the guilds/race/whatever.
Encouraging discussion of this stuff in game is promoting bad RP. If anything, game mechanics should ONLY be talked about on the forum and never in game.
All that only applies to very basic stuff such as what skill x generally does. To talk about mechanics, however, we need some detail that isn't available in game clearly. Such as the mechanics behind defenses. Let me you remind you of the utter failure of this discussion. That is the kind of thing I have major issue with. In summary:
Head Coder: Two handed is better than shield block for high dex races.
Celerity: Can you explain this?
Head Coder: No, I don't want to tell you the secrets.
Let me also remind you of an unpleasant past with Behrens:
Head Coder (Behrens): Humans are the best race for every class.
Playerbase: Can you explain this?
Head Coder (Behrens): I won't tell you. But I didn't change anything in the code.
--
Turns out he DID change things in the code---and he was still wrong.
Alright, since this has been nagging at me for the last couple of days, I'll give you my reasoning. Not because you've compared me to Behrens, and not because I suddenly think you're right - but because I want to hold up that yes, as a coder, I know what I'm talking about and I don't want people to second guess me. If I'm ever wrong, I own up to it.
Two handed > Shield block for high dex races for two reasons, assuming you have a primary weapon equipped. But considering that with two handed you have a secondary and primary slot taken, we can't really compare shield block w/ no weapon versus shield block w/ weapon versus two handed.
So, there's no one handed staffs in the game that are legitimately useful (unless you can somehow curse the weapon.) This has the highest defensive rating of 5.
Shield block is defensive, but you are also taking into consideration parry, something that high dex races also do well. However: parrying with a mace, flail, or whip, is terrible compared to parrying with a staff.
Two handed staff, cursed, therefore, is better than wielding a mace/shield. Simply because, although you might 'shield block' more attacks, parry is still called and will fail more than parrying with a staff.
In this, the most defensive combination of all time would be a Healer with spirit shield, because they can wield a cursed two-handed staff and have a non-object shield to shield block.
If you don't agree, whatever. This is not only from experience as a player (I've played many high dex clerics, one of them an L in Savant) but also experience via reading the code and how two hand block and shield block interact and are different, including how parry comes into play.
And @Celerity, I'm not sure if that last part of your post is directed at me (regarding changing the code / defenses) but as I said before, I never changed the code regarding shield block or two handed. I did change, at one point, which stat it bases the defense off of, but the actual function has not been edited or messed with. And the change of the stat the defenses chose was changed back - both of which were documented in the changes logs.
Thank you for taking the time to give a reply to the question!
The comparison to Behrens was about the coder expecting the playerbase to accept their statements as a matter of blind faith. You were obviously pretty comparable in this situation, so you were compared. If you take personal offense to that, please don't be comparable to Behrens in your actions. The decisions you make and the things you say have an impact and consequences. They contribute to your overall reputation. This is something you can and should take seriously and control. You've known me long enough to know that I am also working for the very best interests of the game. I don't personally attack, but I also won't hold back the punches if they are deserved.
I do tend to question the staff more often than players because they do speak from a position of authority and people do assume that what they say is correct. Players will often correct other players, but most hesitate to do the same with staff. That is where I come in. I suppose I could get banned one day, but I think it is unlikely. That is because none of this is personal, and again, I think it is clearly in the interest of the game. If anything, it just causes some administrative disdain towards me, but again, I can live with that. If I am ever asked or forced to leave the community, I wouldn't have any regrets about how I have affected the game during my time with you guys. I am in my twilight in terms of the community anyways (hard for me to comment on balance anymore since it has been about 4 years since my last log in). I think I am just fading out slowly naturally.
The final bit about about Behrens lying was a reminder that just because somebody is in a position of authority, it does not make them moral or accurate. This MUD has had a pretty bad track record in terms of leadership integrity (most specifically Behrens and Malchaeius). The record on staff competence is even worse but has been improving for the most part. I also know that you as a player would be doing the same questioning right here with me if you were not a member of staff. This is why I prefer to have some evidence and reasoning to back things up, not just a 'he said so'. I don't operate that way.
So again, thank you for taking the time to try to make things right regarding that topic -- it means a lot to me anyways.
Now on to the topic:
Your argument is that high dex staff parry + high dex two handed > high dex mace parry + shield block. Your argument thus boils down to: staff parry is better than non-staff parry. The trick of this argument is the implication that this better parry more than compensates for the lost defense of using two handed over a shield. I could be misunderstanding though, if you are implying that regardless of the parries, two handed block is superior to shield block. In that case though, talking about parries is not relevant at all, so I don't think you were going in that direction.
Overall defensiveness wasn't really the question though, so I will get back to that later. The original assertion was "Two hand block with a high dex race > shield block", specifically comparing shield block and two handed, so you need to isolate those variables. Instead of switching weapons on each side, let's simplify by substituting any weapon class:
+dex sword parry + two handed > +dex sword parry + shield = true?
simplifies to:
two handed > shield block = true?
I'm sure that is false. The weapon class doesn't matter. Even the most defensive weapon's two-handed defense (which is variable depending on class weapon knowledge btw, not only staff) is always going to be worse than shield block. In a perfect scenario, it will be equal.
I also have some doubt about even the example you give regarding mace + shield vs staff two-handed. The answer is typically: it depends on the circumstances involved. As we know, in the most favorable case, two handed is equal to shield block in defense. I think in most situations involved, however, shield block is going to win on the defense. This is not only in straight blocking attacks, but in requiring an additional disarm and the benefits from the shield eq slot as well.
Without numbers to back it up though, the question will still remain unanswered. It is stuck as a matter of 'he said, she said' until some code evidence is produced. In that sense, we haven't really gone farther than the original thread.
To prove me wrong, you would have to show through something in the code:
-
High dex two handed block does defend better than shield block against melee attacks in more cases than not. This would prove you right technically in terms of blocks, but to justify the claim on a better defense you'd also have to answer:
-
Two handed is better in abnormal conditions (you don't know weapons involved, blind, slowed, terrain, some kind of effect)
and
- Two handed is so much better that it also compensates for the additional item stats of the shield (more hp, ac, etc) and the reliability of the shield (it takes two disarms to lose your defenses).
Final thoughts: If I were going to pick the most melee defense combination, I would choose a feral warrior shield expert + master. I'm pretty sure this is significantly more defensive than any healer. Expert in whatever weapon is attacking which is assumed to be a weapon that the warrior knows, but not the healer.
Edited
without numbers to back it up
.
.
trust me im the coder this is better
.
.
I dont believe you...
Cel, comeon do you not see the break in logic here?
Malch was a very correct and 100% integer IMP. Don't slander him please.
Not everyone may have liked his ic decisions, but he never cheated.
With your examples given, Celerity..
Two-handed > Shield block
(Edited to add, Parry doesn't favor dex or strength differently - just compares to opponent. Two handed also takes into account dexterity, but favors strength compared to opponent. Shield block doesn't favor dex or strength - just compares to opponent. - weapon type compared to opponent's weapon type has the biggest difference).
You don't lose a defense using two-handed over shield block. You actually gain a defense (since you're not depending on another object to give you an additional defense.)
Two handed = two defenses: two hand block, and parry.
Shield block = one defense - shield block.
Parrying with a sword < Parrying with a staff.
Parrying with a mace = Parrying with an exotic.
Parrying with a staff > Parrying with a mace/whip/sword/dagger, etc.
You parry more, and it's easier to parry, with specific weapon types. In this case, staff is the most defensive weapon type.
Since you asked for numbers:
6399 /* attack defense with_dis tobe_dis with_sdis */
6400 {
6401 //exotic
6402 {2 , -2 , 3 , -4 , 4 },
6403
6404 //sword
6405 { 0, 0 , 1 , 3 , -3 },
6406
6407 //dagger
6408 {-2 , 0 , 0 , 0 , -5 },
6409
6410 //spear
6411 {-1 , 2 , -4 , 2 , -4 },
6412
6413 //mace
6414 {2 , -1 , -3 , -3 , 0 },
6415
6416 //axe
6417 {4 , -4 , -2 , 1 , 2 },
6418
6419 //flail
6420 {3 , -3 , 2 , -2 , 5 },
6421
6422 //whip
6423 {5 , -5 , 5 , -5 , 3 },
6424
6425 //pole
6426 {1 , 3 , -1 , -1 , 1 },
6427
6428 //staff
6429 {-4 , 5 , -2 , 4 , -2 },
6430 //instrument
6431 {-3 , -1 , -5 , 5 , -1 },
6432 };
As you can see above, there's a rating between -5 and 5. -5 being bad, and 5 being great. These include being disarmed, and using the skills disarm/shield_disarm with them.
Staff has a rating of -4, 5, -2, 4, -2, so:
A staff does terrible with attacking (easy to parry against): -4
A staff does awesome with defending (easy to parry with): 5
A staff is pretty hard to disarm with: -2
A staff is pretty easy to disarm: 4
A staff is kind of hard to shield disarm with: -1
As opposed to a mace, with the ratings: 2, -1, -3, -3, 0.
A mace is pretty decent with attacking (harder to parry against): 2
A mace is doesn't defend very well (harder to parry with): -1
A mace is pretty hard to disarm with: -3
A mace is pretty hard to be disarmed: -3
A mace isn't good or bad to shield disarm with: 0
Edited
For the record, that table is also here (without the instrument): http://theforsakenlands.com/wiki/main/wiki.pl?WeaponSelection
#WikiAwareness
And that being said, I'm now going to update my own personal table.
"Without numbers to back it up"
Then lets do the number for a Cleric with mace + Shield vs a Warrior using a Axe.
And a Cleric with a 2hstaff vs the same Warrior with a Axe.
Let's say both are neutrals to make it easier and not include the Dex/STR comparisons, because I don't know them and races varie and lets not include hitroll (i suspect it would affect both cases the same).
Cleric with Mace/shield.
Mace parry chance: 50 -20 -1x3 -4x3 = 15 = 25%
Shield block chance: 50 = 50 = 50%
Total = (1-( (1-0.25)*(1-0.50))) = 62,5%
Cleric with Two handed staff.
Staff parry chance: 50 -20 +5x3 -4x3 = 33 = 33%
Two handed chance: 50 -20 +5x3 -4x3 = 33 = 33%
Total = (1-( (1-0.33)*(1-0.33) ) ) = 0.5511 = 55%
Slight advantage to the shield one, but then again they aren't really that far off.
My advice has always been, use a shield and a mace. Staff sucks as offense for a cleric. And staffs don't benefit from the extra 2handed damage other weapons get.
PS: If you guys aren't doing this already, you should have the code on the test port print the chance to parry/block/etc at each parry block etc...
Something like:
45%
You parry a large spotted leopard's attack.
<2h block> 60%
You block a large mammoth's attack and attempt to strike at the brief opening.
35%
Your riposte mauls a large mammoth.
And similar for damage:
Behrath's tainted slash DISMEMBERS you! < 050 >
PS2:
Thanks for the instruments rating. Bard instruments sure are sucky tablewise ... lol.
PS3: Screw test port. Better suggestion, make it an affect and an imm only spell to access it or/and put the affect in a item or make it holy_light what ever the special vision privilege imps/imms get to show it. Nothing like watching actual PK powerhouses duke it out on main while you gauge balance.
Edited
cleric doesnt get two handed skill...
Cleric does get two handed.