CL: thoughts on party size and fun/effectiveness
EDitchburn
size for a hunting group in CL and how my thoughts and the thoughts of other
players on that might differ from the view of Delta Tao.
I know that one stated part of the vision of Clan Lord is that characters
should work together. I'm a little unclear, though, on what size group the
game designers think people should spend most of their time hunting in.
As I see it, the sharing system suggests 2 groups sizes that are optimal from a
sharing point of view. One is to have a 6 person group where everyone shares
with everyone else, and everyone at least tags the monsters, including the
non-fighters. The other is to have a 15 person group composed of 10 fighters
and 5 non-fighters (healers and maybe a mystic) in which all the fighters share
all the non-fighters, and the non-fighters share each other. In the 15 person
group the non-fighter would not have to tag to get good experience since they
would have 10 incoming shares from people who were tagging.
From the point of view of my personal preferences (and from what I've heard I
think I'm not the only one) the smaller group is much more fun. Organizing a
group larger than about six is a real hassle, and unless everyone is really
disciplined a group larger than six will be difficult to keep together and
focused. Larger groups can be fun, but for stuff you do every day, trying to
get more than about 6 people together in a team quickly ceases to become fun
and quickly becomes work. Its also the case that larger groups are more likely
to include at least one person with whom I have a personality conflict with,
and while I know we're all supposed to get along in Clan Lord, realistically
speaking I don't think I'm the only one who finds some people irritating.
There do seem to be some areas in clan lord that are good places for a group of
about six to hunt. I haven't been everywhere since I've only been playing
since September, but from what I can tell, the places I'd classify as good
hunting grounds for a group of about six tend to be heavily over hunted. Its
certainly nice to have areas that require larger groups, even mobs, for variety
and challenge, but from the standpoint of what it seems most players want to do
most of the time I think the small group hunting places are under represented
in the game. I think it far more likely that in the long term people who can't
hunt effectively in the groups that they find to be fun will simply cut way
down on the amount of time they play (and maybe even leave) than that they will
put in the work to organize large hunting parties to the point where it becomes
almost a full time job for them.
HWC Malkor asked recently for stats on experience gained from the library as
opposed to hunting. I've heard a lot of complaints from players who have been
around longer than I have that their characters get more experience in the
library than out of it. I wonder if this is not indicative of a lack of good
everyday hunting grounds for higher level characters and/or some other game
balance issue. I expect that a good number of the pre-rip characters will
stick around simply because they are and will remain on the top of the power
curve, but I wonder if there isn't some serious atrition from others when they
reach this point. The DB stats that Ann published a few months ago made it
look like this might be the case.
So, what do the game designers think is a good party size for characters to
spend most of their time hunting in? Does this change with relative level?
What do other players think is fun?
Elizabeth
Hidden
> spend most of their time hunting in? Does this change with relative level?
> What do other players think is fun?
>
> Elizabeth
Personally, I think the ideal party is 2, but that's just me. Fighter
and healer, sharing with each other, and 4 non party members.
--
His Holiness,
Hidden T. Thoom
High Priest to Mak'ros and
LIFE Explorer
Tigger
to do some hunting and then take some time out to have a conversation,
although you could argue it's then not strictly a 'hunt' anymore. It's
difficult to do this with a large group in a remote area. It's either
chaos with 25 people all running around madly or everyone running to some
safe cave, healing, rinsing, and repeating. I agree with you that there
are not enough areas for small groups of high-level characters. There's a
decent number for lower- and mid-level players, like NF, NWF, SF,
Savannah, LP, Fringe, Plains, and DI, but there could be more.
One thing that might help is just turning up spawn rates or fur/mandible
levels for certain existing areas. For example, no one really hunts in TW
or EF or the Marsh, they just pass through on their way to somewhere else.
Crank up the spawns on huntable critters in these areas and maybe make
regular Orgas have a 50% chance of having 1-coin furs or chests. Let
Bloodhawks occasionally start dropping coins again, as they once did. Make
leaches a little harder but have occasionally-recoverable mandibles. Same
thing with the upper levels of the Hive. I don't go there much anymore,
but my impression is that even with high levels of Dentir, it's not very
lucrative, from a coinwhoring standpoint. These would be great areas for
small groups to hunt in and that would also have the benefit of decreasing
the overhunting of the other areas.
- Tigger
Windy Dorf
> I tend to have the most fun hunting in very small groups of 2-4. It's nice
> to do some hunting and then take some time out to have a conversation,
> although you could argue it's then not strictly a 'hunt' anymore. It's
> difficult to do this with a large group in a remote area.
>
> - Tigger
IMHO: 5-6 is a good maximum number group size. I'm trying to get in
the habit of inviting young mystics along to add to the variety of
critters a group can tackle.
3 fighters, 1-2 healers and 1 mystic is a well rounded group.
As far as a hunt turning social, I'd like a hunt to be more like the
Hobbits journey from Bag End to Rivendell. Sorta dangerous, but
relaxed in some places.
In order to get to less travelled and more challenging areas, you need
a much greater time commitment. The further you get from town
(granted, wilderness is afterall, wilderness) the harder the areas
become. And in addition, it takes that much longer for the return
trip.
I would propose "green belts". Sorta like in a large city, where areas
of trees and parks (sorta like the meadow, but with more and "gentle"
critters).
These areas would be more of a relaxed atmosphere, where you could
catch your breath. I know, I know, we already have safe "caves" and
such, I am speaking of open areas.
I hate to keep refering to LOTRs, but Rivendell is a prime example of
an area smack dab between the Misty Mountains and the western
wilderness. Someplace you could journey to that would promise
relaxation. I would indeed make it difficult to get to, but the
promise of its hospitality would make a journey well worth the peril.
The closest thing I can think of in-game is the safe cave outside the
FHs.
Not very heartwarming ya know. Maybe we could transport some supplies
to make it more inviting. (a couple library books would make a huge
difference too)
-WD
Helpful GM
editc...@aol.comNOSPAM (EDitchburn) wrote:
> I know that one stated part of the vision of Clan Lord is that characters
> should work together. I'm a little unclear, though, on what size group
> the game designers think people should spend most of their time hunting in.
Different people will enjoy different sized groups. The game designers
hope that people will find the most fun playing in groups of "more than
one", but the ultimate size of your group is up to you.
> As I see it, the sharing system suggests 2 groups sizes that are optimal
> from a
> sharing point of view. One is to have a 6 person group where everyone
> shares
> with everyone else, and everyone at least tags the monsters, including
> the
> non-fighters. The other is to have a 15 person group composed of 10
> fighters
> and 5 non-fighters (healers and maybe a mystic) in which all the fighters
> share
> all the non-fighters, and the non-fighters share each other. In the 15
> person
> group the non-fighter would not have to tag to get good experience since
> they would have 10 incoming shares from people who were tagging.
When designing the various data structures for the game, it was decided
to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10 were
selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
"ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that represented
"plenty".
Personally, I think it's pretty lame for someone to limit their party to
6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th person to refuse to come
along because of sharing considerations. In the first place, there's
nothing that says that folks can't rotate their shares around, as
circumstances change and, in the second place, it's just darned petty to
make who to hunt with decisions based on a share.
Same thing for tag-memory. If someone's going to get all upset because
10 other people tagged a monster since they did and they missed out on
the kill (or vanq), then they need to relax, or maybe hunt somewhere
else. To say either "I'm sorry, we already have 10 in our group, you
can't join us" or "I'll join you, but only if I get to be among the last
10 to whack the big monsters" is just lame, lame, lame. And petty. And
lame.
IMO, YMMV, not available in stores, some restrictions apply.
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, ever purchase any product from
any company which gathers addresses from the usenet; period.
EDitchburn
>
>hope that people will find the most fun playing in groups of "more than
>
>one", but the ultimate size of your group is up to you.
>
OK. Going by responses so far and my own preferences it looks like most people
think 2-6 is a good group size, with smaller groups being more fun. I was
wondering if what most people will want to do most of the time was something
that the GMs thought about when adding new areas. Party size is not
*completely* up to us players. If my character gets a couple of friends
together to hunt someplace where they can handle and get decent experience, it
is all to often the case that they will go to a number of such places only to
find that there is already a group there, and the area won't really support
more than one group. We can try to hunt in groups of 2-3, but those efforts
are often frustrated by a lack of available hunting grounds
>When designing the various data structures for the game, it was decided
>
>to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10 were
>
>selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
>"ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that represented
>
>"plenty".
OK good to know. Even if the decision was arbirtrary, though, its still has an
effect an effect on what size party will be most efficient. Hard to ignore by
those of us who are rank who....uh, concerned about our character's rate of
development. :)
>Personally, I think it's pretty lame for someone to limit their party to
>
>6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th person to refuse to come
>along because of sharing considerations.
I never said I'd do such a thing, nor meant to suggest I would. I agree that
its lame. I was just using the "ideal" case as an example.
Actually what happens far more often is that a group I am with will gain extra
members as we go through hunting grounds because there seem to be not enough
good hunting areas for groups of 2-4 around and we don't like to be so rude as
to tell folks to get lost. Then at some point the group will become so
unweildy that it is annoying, or someone with whom I have a personality
conflict will join the group. At this point I usually leave the group at the
first opportunity and go solo hunting in SF for coins, which I know is not what
the game designers wanted.
Elizabeth
Warren J. Dew
it's just darned petty to make who to hunt with decisions
based on a share
Petty or not, lots of people are doing it, because share decisions are so
critical to advancement for many characters.
In other words, the mechanics encourage this behavior. Maybe it's just part of
Joe's vision for the perfect society?
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
ser Slyph
editc...@aol.comNOSPAM (EDitchburn) wrote:
> OK. Going by responses so far and my own preferences it looks
> like most people think 2-6 is a good group size, with smaller
> groups being more fun.
You have to be careful about forming an opinion based on a
few posts, from the the few people that post on this newsgroup.
I'm not suggesting that you're necessarily wrong, but that
preferring smaller groups might not be as as prevelent as you
might think. I happen to like all kinds of party sizes. Small
hunts, large expeditions, and my personal favorite-- mad town
invasions. Other players feel similarly.
[snip]
From HGM:
> >Personally, I think it's pretty lame for someone to limit
> >their party to 6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th
> >person to refuse to come along because of sharing
> >considerations.
>
> I never said I'd do such a thing, nor meant to suggest I
> would. I agree that its lame. I was just using the "ideal"
> case as an example.
A party of 6 persons or less might be far from ideal, as far
as gaining experience is concerned. Party members still "kill"
certain monsters? What percentage of kill-experience are they
getting from a tag? 1%? 95%? A "kill" only tells you that you
did not get 100% experience possible from a tag, but neither did
you get 0% (unless this has changed). Other factors also affect
experience gain, like spawns, kill rates, and the ability to heal
and continue fighting quickly.
In many cases, going for larger monsters with bigger groups,
and making more tags on monsters they "vanquish" might yield
considerable more experience, no matter your profession, than
6-person parties. Or not.
I don't think party sizes are anywhere close to being able
to be reduced down to "six is the ideal number for experience
gain," or even "two to six."
> Actually what happens far more often is that a group I am with
> will gain extra members as we go through hunting grounds
> because there seem to be not enough good hunting areas for
> groups of 2-4 around and we don't like to be so rude as to
> tell folks to get lost.
Yeah, that can be a pain. But I'm a big believer in white
lies-- little fibs that are told to prevent a person from having
feelings hurt.
"I have to be away from my computer for a few minutes, don't
wait for me."
or
"Halflings smell like bacon, and I just had my coat cleaned.
Sorry."
Just some thoughts.
-Slyph
--
"Until you give players GM powers, [you're] the ones making the story, or at
least providing the background and moving it along."
-- Michael
Kojiro
> Helpful GM posts, in part:
>
> it's just darned petty to make who to hunt with decisions
> based on a share
>
> Petty or not, lots of people are doing it, because share decisions are so
> critical to advancement for many characters.
Yeah, and its lame for people to make who to hunt with decisions based
on what their profession is! And its lame for people to make who to
hunt with decisions based on whether or not they will survive that
hunt! And its lame for people to make who to hunt with decisions based
on whether they can hunt effectively with that group!
Damn those people who pay attention to reality! Real RPers would
ignore the beasts and ranks and weapons entirely! That would be the
best!
--------------------
Note: the above is sarcasm, intended to illustrate the silliness of
HGM's post.
-Kojiro
Kiriel D'Sol
<psych...@aol.com> wrote:
:Helpful GM posts, in part:
I don't really like the practice myself, but I do tend to use it
depending on the style of hunt because things do sometimes get ugly
when shares are in contention. It's particularly problematic when
mystics are involved, because the mystics deserve shares and need them
to make their skills better, but if there's a full set of healers, then
it's tough for them to get shares, and the healers get annoyed because
people need to swap shares and forget.
When I go hunting on a random for the heck of it hunt, or a clan hunt,
obviously there's no reason to limit members, but if it's a coin hunt
then adding more people just decreases the coins for everyone, which
can lead to ugliness, and with other types of hunts if you have too
many healers you will end up with problems regarding shares.
Typically more fighters doesn't cause a lot of problems unless there
are too many to share tags effectively, at which point you also end up
with ugliness. The 10 tags rule is particularly obnoxious in that it
usually comes up when you are fighting something so nasty that it takes
forever to kill, so it's natural for folks to be annoyed that they
spent 20 minutes killing a landew and didn't get credit because they
tagged too early in the process. It's silly to complain about not
getting tag credit for something easy, but when it's a sizable effort
to kill it sucks to not get any credit after the fact, and the mechanic
leads people to try to get multiple tags later in to make sure they get
their experience.
So although it seems petty it's really just practical- harmony on hunts
is very important and if you don't organize the party appropriately bad
things can result, such as ugly fighting or people leaving. It's a
natural outgrowth of the share system.
I wonder if it might be more interesting if you could share more than 5
people but at a reduced rate of experience sharing. That might make
larger hunts more fun and party size more flexible, but it would give
healers more of an advantage because healing shared fighters is easier,
and mystics would more easily get their skills boosted.
--
-SWC Kiriel D'Sol
-- Ye have enemies? Good, good- that means ye've stood up for
something, sometime in thy life.... -Elminster of Shadowdale
Sareth
>> based on a share
>>
>> Petty or not, lots of people are doing it, because share decisions are so
>> critical to advancement for many characters.
>
> Yeah, and its lame for people to make who to hunt with decisions based
> on what their profession is! And its lame for people to make who to
> hunt with decisions based on whether or not they will survive that
> hunt! And its lame for people to make who to hunt with decisions based
> on whether they can hunt effectively with that group!
>
> Damn those people who pay attention to reality! Real RPers would
> ignore the beasts and ranks and weapons entirely! That would be the
> best!
>
> --------------------
> Note: the above is sarcasm, intended to illustrate the silliness of
> HGM's post.
I think HGM was pointing out that the people choosing hunt sizes based off
of shares exclusively are just as shallow as those who choose RL friendships
based off of the size of bank accounts. Or do you do that too?
-HWC Sareth
Rising Claw, Bard, 2nd Circle Fighter, Pathfinder, Skinner.
Helpful GM
its...@garhole.com (Kojiro) wrote:
Surely you're not that clueless, Kojiro!
Based on party profession make-up is a matter of survival.
Based on survivability is a matter of survival.
Based on hunting effectiveness is a matter of survival.
Based on if there are too many people to X-share everyone is a matter of
some relatively very small amount of XP.
Making decisions based on survivability is smart.
Making decisions based on some small amount of XP is petty, lame,
not-smart.
See the difference?
But really, it boils down to this: if the lack-of-fun that you
experience by not being shared by every member of the party outweighs
the fun you have at sharing the company of more than 6 friends during an
adventure then, by all means, you should avoid hunting with your friends.
In fact, you should probably spend some time in a quiet place
re-thinking your priorities.
Helpful "no sarcasm here, just another helpful and informative post,
attempting to get a message through to those who would refuse to hear
it" GM
Sutai
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
Has tagging been reduced to only 10 people now? How long has this been
effective? I remember the limit being much larger in the past. :(
--
Take away my scrimp sammitch, and I'll smack you! But you can send me an email.
Helpful GM
<SCRIMPsutSAMMITCHa...@user-uivfqef.dsl.mindspring.com>,
SCRIMPsut...@puddleby.dk (Sutai) wrote:
> > When designing the various data structures for the game, it was decided
> > to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10 were
>
> Has tagging been reduced to only 10 people now? How long has this been
> effective? I remember the limit being much larger in the past. :(
For as long as I've been a GM, the monsters' whoHitMe arry has been 10
big.
What information do YOU have?
Yor
GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> Surely you're not that clueless, Kojiro!
>
> Based on party profession make-up is a matter of survival.
> Based on survivability is a matter of survival.
> Based on hunting effectiveness is a matter of survival.
> Based on if there are too many people to X-share everyone is a matter of
> some relatively very small amount of XP.
>
> Making decisions based on survivability is smart.
>
> Making decisions based on some small amount of XP is petty, lame,
> not-smart.
>
> See the difference?
>
> But really, it boils down to this: if the lack-of-fun that you
> experience by not being shared by every member of the party outweighs
> the fun you have at sharing the company of more than 6 friends during an
> adventure then, by all means, you should avoid hunting with your friends.
>
> In fact, you should probably spend some time in a quiet place
> re-thinking your priorities.
>
The smaller the party, the more I seem to have fun. For me, this has
nothing to do with shares and experience, although rotating
healer/mystic shares makes things considerably more difficult for me.
Smaller hunts are easier (and faster) to put together, easier to
manage, and most importantly, more challenging. Challenge = fun IMHO.
I also tend to find myself standing around much less (and therefore
daydreaming much less) in smaller parties as there is always something
to do.
Now I'm not saying I avoid large groups like the plague because I
don't. Sometimes there's either no choice if I want something to do,
no way to avoid it, or sometimes I actually feel like a larger party.
There are certainly people out there who make a big deal about the
number of shares, fighters, healers, etc... to the point where they
will refuse to come, walk away after showing up, or make a big scene
out of it. Some of these concerns *might* be legitimate, like healers
who shy away from larger parties because the claim some fighters not
sharing them drains their health, therefore increasing their danger.
While some other of these concerns are anything but legitimate and
can lead to some atrocious, and self-absorbed displays of behavior. A
friend of mine was organizing a hunt last week and invited a certain
Dwarf fighter. When the Dwarf fighter arrived and saw more than six
fighters (apparently his personal limit) he went balistic, yelled at
the hunt organizer, then stormed off. To make matters worse, in an
attempt to exact revenge on this hunt organizer for "ruining" his idea
of a perfect hunt this Dwarf proceeded to sunstone random people to
this hunt in hopes of ruining it.
Pretty pathetic behavior but believe it or not shares and experience
are really THAT important to some people.
Yor
P.S. Anybody that takes the time to organize and/or lead a hunt
deserves some amount of respect for doing so IMHO. If you don't like
the way the hunt is put together then either turn down the invitation
or tell them thanks but you need to go (or something).
Hidden
wrote:
> I think HGM was pointing out that the people choosing hunt sizes based off
> of shares exclusively are just as shallow as those who choose RL friendships
> based off of the size of bank accounts. Or do you do that too?
Y'know, it's pretty shallow of you to judge people by their shallowness.
Shame on you, I... well, I didn't really think better of you, but you
proved me right at least! ;)
Entil'Zha Mithraell
> When designing the various data structures for the game, it was decided
> to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10 were
> selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
> "ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that represented
> "plenty".
Okay, suggestion: Increase the number of tags that 'stick'. It's
incredibly annoying to have a party including 20 fighters trying to take
out a sun wyrm or a hatred (though it really doesn't take many fighters
for either of these anymore, but I'm sure there'll be new critters that
require effort from *many* people showing up in the future), and after
45 minutes of whiffing it, when it finally dies, ten fighters say "Doh,
I didn't get credit." It's not fun. Curses upon anyone who says "If
you don't think it's fun, do something else."
> Personally, I think it's pretty lame for someone to limit their party to
> 6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th person to refuse to come
> along because of sharing considerations. In the first place, there's
> nothing that says that folks can't rotate their shares around, as
> circumstances change and, in the second place, it's just darned petty to
> make who to hunt with decisions based on a share.
>
> Same thing for tag-memory. If someone's going to get all upset because
> 10 other people tagged a monster since they did and they missed out on
> the kill (or vanq), then they need to relax, or maybe hunt somewhere
> else. To say either "I'm sorry, we already have 10 in our group, you
> can't join us" or "I'll join you, but only if I get to be among the last
> 10 to whack the big monsters" is just lame, lame, lame. And petty. And
> lame.
>
> IMO, YMMV, not available in stores, some restrictions apply.
Hmm. It's one thing to have six healers in TGBG. Some of them are sure
to leave soon anyway.
Nobody likes having six healers on, say, Noth, though. When this
happens, (a) nobody shares the mystic, (b) it bugs the healers, whose
shares are constantly being rotated, and (c) it bugs the fighters, who
constantly have to rotate shares. I'd imagine that this is especially
annoying when people who type slowly are involved in the share rotating.
People have to quit fighting for a moment in order to share the healer
who's healing them. Usually when there are too many healers, a healer
will just get annoyed and leave. Sometimes the fighters will get
annoyed and leave, too. Of course, nobody cares when the mystic gets
annoyed and leaves...
Similarly, when there are too many fighters, people will also get
annoyed and leave.
When there are too many mystics, however, we just ignore them all, and
if we're lucky, they'll get annoyed and leave. ;-)
It's much more fun if nobody gets annoyed and leaves, though. Honest.
What is lame is when someone takes offense at being told that the party
is already large enough. I don't like to hunt in huge unruly groups,
it's not fun (most of the time, anyway). While there are probably folks
who think differently than I do on this one, I'm certainly not alone,
either. Limiting a party's size is commonly done. It's one of those
things folks just have to learn to live with.
Entil'Zha and SWC
--
Maeght
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think it's pretty lame for someone to limit their party to
> 6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th person to refuse to come
> along because of sharing considerations. In the first place, there's
> nothing that says that folks can't rotate their shares around, as
> circumstances change and, in the second place, it's just darned petty to
> make who to hunt with decisions based on a share.
It happens.
> Same thing for tag-memory. If someone's going to get all upset because
> 10 other people tagged a monster since they did and they missed out on
> the kill (or vanq), then they need to relax, or maybe hunt somewhere
> else. To say either "I'm sorry, we already have 10 in our group, you
> can't join us" or "I'll join you, but only if I get to be among the last
> 10 to whack the big monsters" is just lame, lame, lame. And petty. And
> lame.
Wake up and smell the coffee. You didn't install a lamer filter in CL.
You'd be amazed at the pettiness out there.
- Maeght
Maeght
ser Slyph <sl...@sisna.kom.no.spam> wrote:
> "Halflings smell like bacon, and I just had my coat cleaned.
> Sorry."
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> -Slyph
I call that pretty bold talk coming from a pie-faced Sylvan.
- Maeght
Lex
> 6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th person to refuse to come
> along because of sharing considerations. In the first place, there's
> nothing that says that folks can't rotate their shares around, as
> circumstances change and, in the second place, it's just darned petty to
> make who to hunt with decisions based on a share.
It's more than that. If a mystic and 5 healers are in a group, the mystic
will get rotated out and get almost no experience for the hunt. When 6
healers are there, if one is designated for running stuff s/he gets rotated
out for most of the hunt. Usually this person is the best for running stuff
so keeps the job for the entire hunt.
> Same thing for tag-memory. If someone's going to get all upset because
> 10 other people tagged a monster since they did and they missed out on
> the kill (or vanq), then they need to relax, or maybe hunt somewhere
> else. To say either "I'm sorry, we already have 10 in our group, you
> can't join us" or "I'll join you, but only if I get to be among the last
> 10 to whack the big monsters" is just lame, lame, lame. And petty. And
> lame.
>
> IMO, YMMV, not available in stores, some restrictions apply.
What's lame is limiting the number of people who can get experience for a
kill to 10, especially on things like ethereal drakes or mother sasquach
that are often hunted by large groups. Being the one who doesn't get any
experience out of it just puts a damper on the whole hunt. Also, if one
person leaves because they are consistently not getting credit, it makes
everyone else feel bad. Not fun.
So, when getting a group together, it's only sensible to consider that more
then 10 fighters might end up in bad feelings among one or a few and plan
accordingly. Even if you think it's lame to get upset over missing a few
kills, you can't go around being unaware that people do sometimes get upset.
Lex
Lex
> You'd be amazed at the pettiness out there.
>
> - Maeght
Not only that, but there are people I really enjoy hunting with that
sometimes don't like the hunt we're on, or won't hunt with exile X, or do
one really stupid thing but are otherwise okay, and I'm certainly not going
to say "you're lame for that one little thing you do, go away".
They should be more like me and do LOTS of stupid things. At least I'm
consistent :)
Lex
Helpful GM
<pnat...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> The smaller the party, the more I seem to have fun. For me, this has
> nothing to do with shares and experience, although rotating
> healer/mystic shares makes things considerably more difficult for me.
> Smaller hunts are easier (and faster) to put together, easier to
> manage, and most importantly, more challenging. Challenge = fun IMHO.
> I also tend to find myself standing around much less (and therefore
> daydreaming much less) in smaller parties as there is always something
> to do.
Btw, I agree. I just find smaller parties more personal -- I have a
difficult time "being friends" with 20 people. I know, you're thinking
"Helpful?! That social butterfly?!?!", well, it's true.
But if a 7th person came along, I'd have a hard time saying "ooo, this
is going to totally screw-up my share system -- maybe we shouldn't let
them join us."
That's all I was getting at.
Fun, obviously, is king. Phelps willing, of course ;)
Mike
> Elizabeth
I dont know about low level parties, but high level parties almost never
wait for a healer to tag. Most healers dont even try, because its not
worth the effort.
And I think its also rare for a mystic to get a share. Most fighters
would rather X share another fighter for more exp than give one to the
mystic.
And there are not that many places a high level group of 6 could go to
get much exp unless most of the group is very strong (Gurgi, Ziff,
Thuja, ect). And a group like this wouldnt even get much exp in the
valley since its moslty kills for them. You need more like 4 healers
and 6 fighters for the valley to be safe. You can do it with less, but
it gets more risky if you get a bad entrance or something. And on a
place like KI you need even more to be safe.
Just my observations.
Michael
--
Mike
> What is lame is when someone takes offense at being told that the party
> is already large enough. I don't like to hunt in huge unruly groups,
> it's not fun (most of the time, anyway). While there are probably folks
> who think differently than I do on this one, I'm certainly not alone,
> either. Limiting a party's size is commonly done. It's one of those
> things folks just have to learn to live with.
Most times the people that get pissy over hearing a hunt is full are the
fucking morons that you dont want on the hunt anyway. Most people that
know how to hunt understand "sorry, hunts full. but will keep you in
mind if someone leaves."
Michael
Mike
> Typically more fighters doesn't cause a lot of problems unless there
> are too many to share tags effectively, at which point you also end up
> with ugliness. The 10 tags rule is particularly obnoxious in that it
> usually comes up when you are fighting something so nasty that it takes
> forever to kill, so it's natural for folks to be annoyed that they
> spent 20 minutes killing a landew and didn't get credit because they
> tagged too early in the process. It's silly to complain about not
> getting tag credit for something easy, but when it's a sizable effort
> to kill it sucks to not get any credit after the fact, and the mechanic
> leads people to try to get multiple tags later in to make sure they get
> their experience.
This is one reason (of many) I hate to see healers (who should have
shares) trying to tag one of these hard critters. They are robbing
fighters (who prolly have 0 shares) from getting the exp of the kill.
And a healer of the same level will get MUCH less exp for a tag than a
fighter.
MIchael
Mike
> When designing the various data structures for the game, it was decided
> to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10 were
> selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
> "ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that represented
> "plenty".
Super strong critters need to hold more than 10 tags. You have things
like Fire Drakes and Snow Wyrms that take 20 exiles to bring down with
luck hits, and half dont get credit. Nothing like spending a half hour
luck hitting the drake to death to not get anything for it.
> Personally, I think it's pretty lame for someone to limit their party to
> 6 and to either exclude a 7th or for a 7th person to refuse to come
> along because of sharing considerations. In the first place, there's
> nothing that says that folks can't rotate their shares around, as
> circumstances change and, in the second place, it's just darned petty to
> make who to hunt with decisions based on a share.
Having more than 5 healers is HUGE pain in the ass. And many healers
wont go somewhere if there is already more than 4 other healers there
because they wont get shares. Do you have any idea how annoying it is
to try and change your shares every time you need healed?
> Same thing for tag-memory. If someone's going to get all upset because
> 10 other people tagged a monster since they did and they missed out on
> the kill (or vanq), then they need to relax, or maybe hunt somewhere
> else. To say either "I'm sorry, we already have 10 in our group, you
> can't join us" or "I'll join you, but only if I get to be among the last
> 10 to whack the big monsters" is just lame, lame, lame. And petty. And
> lame.
This might be a shock to some of you RPing nitwits, but most people that
RW do it so they can tag things and get ranks. If your tags are not
counting then you are not getting ranks and the hunt is just a big waste
of time for you. 10 tags is a bullshit OOC limitation put there by DT
and players are justified in bitching about it.
Michael
ser Slyph
Maeght <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I call that pretty bold talk coming from a pie-faced Sylvan.
>
> - Maeght
Only because you found a ladder, short stuff. And you don't
want me to pie you back-- it involves being wrapped in pie dough
with potato and rutabaga.
And rutabaga talks too much. You just think about that.
Phelps
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> Fun, obviously, is king. Phelps willing, of course ;)
Regency Punning without a license, 50c fine.
King Phelps the Everlasting
South Farm Empire
--
Affiliation medals are tyranny.
Phelps
enti...@angelfire.com (Entil'Zha Mithraell) wrote:
> Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> > When designing the various data structures for the game, it was decided
> > to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10 were
> > selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
> > "ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that represented
> > "plenty".
>
> Okay, suggestion: Increase the number of tags that 'stick'.
This touches on something that is unclear to me. Maybe H-GM can
clear this up if he is allowved to answer this one: Is the number (10
or whatever) the number of unique tags, or just the last X number of
hits? It just matters as to the degree of the problem (the latter is
more onerous than the former.)
HWC for Phelps, figuring that anything involving the Phelpses of the
World would have to be unique
obBalanceTaxSDB
Hidden
mike...@aol.com (Mike) wrote:
What pisses me off more (this never happens now, but it did when I was
3rd circle, some time ago):
Hidden to hunt-person: Mind if I join your Valley hunt?
Hunt-person: Sorry, full. We'll keep you in mind in case somebody
leaves. You're at the top of our list.
/thank Hunt-person
(20 minutes later, Hidden is bored)
Exile A is now Clanning
(30 seconds pass)
Hidden: Hey Exile A, want to go hunt Noth? I'm gathering a party.
Exile A: Sorry, I'm headed off to the Valley to join Hunt-person's group.
I hate people who don't have the fortitude to say "sorry, we don't want
you. Fuck off". White lies are evil. EVIL I TELL YOU.
Helpful GM
<phe...@attbi.com> wrote:
> In article <1f6d121.1klyexf5tx66uN%enti...@angelfire.com>,
> enti...@angelfire.com (Entil'Zha Mithraell) wrote:
>
> > Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When designing the various data structures for the game, it was
> > > decided
> > > to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10
> > > were
> > > selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
> > > "ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that
> > > represented
> > > "plenty".
> >
> > Okay, suggestion: Increase the number of tags that 'stick'.
So suggested.
It's a server change, though -- maybe a major one (hey, don't ask! ;) --
but suggested, anyway. Just don't hold your breath.
> This touches on something that is unclear to me. Maybe H-GM can
> clear this up if he is allowved to answer this one: Is the number (10
> or whatever) the number of unique tags, or just the last X number of
> hits? It just matters as to the degree of the problem (the latter is
> more onerous than the former.)
The 10 last unique folks to hit the monster. Array-size, 10. Each new
person not already on the list goes to the head of the line, others
slide down, #10 falls off.
Jeff Ray
> not-smart.
Is it more or less "petty, lame, not-smart" than fixing the
game-mechanical realities that caused it in the first place? Since DT
created this system, and persistes with it despite the many complaints, I
assume that things are exactly as DT wants them to be.
Over the 1.75 years I have been playing this game, I have heard countless
suggestions made to "correct" these game-mechanical flaws, including
eliminating the hard-coded share limit (50% experience divided among N
shares, 10% cap per share), and removing the tag cap (by dynamically
allocating the whoHitMe array, which would probably result in an overall
memory savings).
Personally, I suspect that DT is intentionally remaining with the current
system as a way of creating more inter-player conflict.
-jrr
Ashe
mike...@aol.com (Mike) wrote:
> Having more than 5 healers is HUGE pain in the ass. And many healers
> wont go somewhere if there is already more than 4 other healers there
> because they wont get shares. Do you have any idea how annoying it is
> to try and change your shares every time you need healed?
OR...
you can do what ashe does and go with groups that are organized and
experienced enough to recognize what healers have shares from what
fighters and support those. it's amazing how simple this all can be if
you're with a group that knows what it's doing.
PLUS...
ashe is a kick-ass enough healer that when things get stressed she can
heal fighters that aren't sharing without much of a sweat. yes, even the
big fifth-circle zos...
I know, I know... these are solutions that take skill, and effort, and
forethought and all that, but really... it's not that hard.
it does mean that you have to be liked by intelligent, experienced
exiles though... that might be more difficult for y'all.
helpfullery yers...
--
Ashe
Witch, First Class
Sisters of Benevolence
Founding Member of SKA
Stephen McManus
> But if a 7th person came along, I'd have a hard time saying "ooo, this
> is going to totally screw-up my share system -- maybe we shouldn't let
> them join us."
(Er, new newsreader. Dunno how this will come out)
So the 7th person joins you and all's well. Then the 7th wants to bring
their friend along. Is that ok?
Then a 9th person comes along. Still ok?
a 10th? 11th?
Where do you draw the line? At some point you're going to have to say
"No, go away". :P It's easier to do this right away then postponing it.
Maeght
ser Slyph <sl...@sisna.kom.no.spam> wrote:
> In article <awessels-EB7DAD...@news.supernews.com>,
> Maeght <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I call that pretty bold talk coming from a pie-faced Sylvan.
> >
> > - Maeght
>
> Only because you found a ladder, short stuff. And you don't
> want me to pie you back-- it involves being wrapped in pie dough
> with potato and rutabaga.
>
> And rutabaga talks too much. You just think about that.
I figger I'm safe until ya get the rib joint agoin'.
'sides, it is just a matter of knowin which palms ta grease. There's a
reason those pies are 35c a pop.
- Maeght :-)
Warren J. Dew
a healer of the same level will get MUCH less exp for a tag
than a fighter.
Depends on what you think constitutes 'level'.
Circle? Not clear, it's pretty variable when healers pass their circle tests.
Trained ranks? Depends on the skills trained. Time clanned? Almost certainly
not true; after a certain point, it becomes significantly more difficult for
healers to get experience than for fighters.
Ability to kill things? Sure, of a healer and a fighter who are of equal
ability killing things, the healer will get less experience. But you don't
often find healers equal in fighting prowess to the fighters on their party.
Agreed that healers with 10 fighter shares probably shouldn't be tagging,
though. A rather infrequent exception is if the healer is needed to help kill
the thing.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Hor
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <phelps-EB3198....@netnews.attbi.com>, Phelps
> <phe...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1f6d121.1klyexf5tx66uN%enti...@angelfire.com>,
> > enti...@angelfire.com (Entil'Zha Mithraell) wrote:
> >
> > > Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When designing the various data structures for the game, it was
> > > > decided
> > > > to bound things like shares and tag-memory, and limits of 5 and 10
> > > > were
> > > > selected arbritrarily. These numbers were not intended to suggest an
> > > > "ideal" party size, they were just selected as numbers that
> > > > represented
> > > > "plenty".
> > >
> > > Okay, suggestion: Increase the number of tags that 'stick'.
>
> So suggested.
>
> It's a server change, though -- maybe a major one (hey, don't ask! ;) --
> but suggested, anyway. Just don't hold your breath.
>
Ok, when talking about server changes..and possible memory problems again.
What about taking the problem at the root? Like adding more memory to the
server machine? This is quite likely much cheaper than to pay a programmer
to hack efficient server code.
(Just checked at Kingston... max memory for such an old sparcstation is 512MB..
if we are are not there yet, adding 64MB is at about $100.)
On the other side a better solution (which does not involve upgrade ancient
hardware 8) would be perhaps a new data structure for critters? Like one
small one for simple and numerous things like vermines. The tag array should be
sufficent at 3 there.. and for the more rare ones expand to 30... shouldnt
be that difficult? and overall its most likely a saving of memory!
Ok, ok..just my 2 eurocent here 8)
(And it would be cool to hear also some news from the work at the client side! 8)
HWC Hor
--
___ ___
/ | \ ___________ | CL : www.fierceandfurry.de
/ ~ \/ _ \_ __ \ | EMAIL : t...@fhm.edu
\ Y ( <_> ) | \/ | WEB : www.xcdroast.org
\___|_ / \____/|__| |
\/ All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
Mike
> OR...
>
> you can do what ashe does and go with groups that are organized and
> experienced enough to recognize what healers have shares from what
> fighters and support those. it's amazing how simple this all can be if
> you're with a group that knows what it's doing.
>
> PLUS...
>
> ashe is a kick-ass enough healer that when things get stressed she can
> heal fighters that aren't sharing without much of a sweat. yes, even the
> big fifth-circle zos...
>
> I know, I know... these are solutions that take skill, and effort, and
> forethought and all that, but really... it's not that hard.
>
> it does mean that you have to be liked by intelligent, experienced
> exiles though... that might be more difficult for y'all.
>
> helpfullery yers...
Again, still more work and effort than just limiting yourself to 5
healers unless you have to take more beacuse the place requires large
rods or something.
There really isnt any place that people hunt (not go on raids and
explore, that is different) that you cant do with 5 healers if they are
the right ones.
Michael
Mike
> Circle? Not clear, it's pretty variable when healers pass their circle
> tests. Trained ranks? Depends on the skills trained. Time clanned?
> Almost certainly not true; after a certain point, it becomes significantly
> more difficult for healers to get experience than for fighters.
9 times out of 10, a 4th circle healer will have higher slaughter than a
4th circle fighter, even though the 4th circle fighter prolly has at
least 400 more ranks. Healer slaughter is MUCH higher than fighter
slaughter.
And "time clanned" has nothing what so ever to do with level.
> Ability to kill things? Sure, of a healer and a fighter who are of equal
> ability killing things, the healer will get less experience. But you don't
> often find healers equal in fighting prowess to the fighters on their party.
After about mid level healers have almost no ability to kill the things
that a party is hunting anyway.
> Agreed that healers with 10 fighter shares probably shouldn't be tagging,
> though. A rather infrequent exception is if the healer is needed to help kill
> the thing.
Maybe the things you can hunt a healer can help kill, but that wont
last. On higher levels a healer will never save a party by fighting.
Ever. You are 10x better if they just keep heaing.
Michael
Ode
> Personally, I suspect that DT is intentionally remaining with the current
> system as a way of creating more inter-player conflict.
>
> -jrr
Or they're just bloody lazy!
Lex
>> wont go somewhere if there is already more than 4 other healers there
>> because they wont get shares. Do you have any idea how annoying it is
>> to try and change your shares every time you need healed?
>
> OR...
>
> you can do what ashe does and go with groups that are organized and
> experienced enough to recognize what healers have shares from what
> fighters and support those. it's amazing how simple this all can be if
> you're with a group that knows what it's doing.
I've suggested something like this on hunts and people hate it. In fact,
there are healers who will cad me for 1 second just to get me to change
shares and then move on, which is why I don't use the sharecads macro
anymore.
Lex
ser Slyph
wrote:
> I've suggested something like this on hunts and people hate it. In fact,
> there are healers who will cad me for 1 second just to get me to change
> shares and then move on, which is why I don't use the sharecads macro
> anymore.
>
> Lex
Are you sure that that is what's going on inside a healer's
head? In a group where many fighters are taking damage at once,
you'll often find me starting to cad someone, only to abruptly
change my mind as a tactical decision. It has nothing to do with
the fact that someone is sharing me or not.
Oh, I know there are healers out there that get upset over
the share situation, and some probably do what you mentioned
above, but there are tons of us who understand that it can be
difficult for fighters to constantly juggle shares, and we don't
mind being left without some shares.
-Slyph
--
"This might be a shock to some of you [role-playing] nitwits, but most people
that [rank-whore] do it so they can tag things and get ranks."
-- Michael
Helpful GM
McManus" <steve.remove....@rawmaw.com> wrote:
> In article <HelpfulGM-4AC4A...@ca.news.verio.net>, "Helpful
> GM" <HelpfulGM@*no-spam*playnaked.com> wrote:
>
> > But if a 7th person came along, I'd have a hard time saying "ooo, this
> > is going to totally screw-up my share system -- maybe we shouldn't let
> > them join us."
> (Er, new newsreader. Dunno how this will come out)
>
> So the 7th person joins you and all's well. Then the 7th wants to bring
> their friend along. Is that ok?
Sure. Why wouldn't it be?
> Then a 9th person comes along. Still ok?
> a 10th? 11th?
> Where do you draw the line? At some point you're going to have to say
> "No, go away". :P It's easier to do this right away then postponing it.
That's what I'm saying -- to me, saying "oh, sorry, our hunt is fully
x-shared and 'full'" is silly. Now, if you were to say "you know, 30
people don't actually FIT in the queen's chamber", that makes sense. Or
"sorry, the 5 of us want to continue practicing some very tight tactical
manuevers" or "sorry, some of us are on a schedule, we can't wait"...
those all make sense to me.
"I'm fully shared, you can't come" doesn't make sense to me.
That's all I was saying.
Then again, "sure, the more the merrier" makes sense to me, too.
Helpful GM
odess...@aolNONONO.com (Ode) wrote:
Probably that. ;)
Helpful GM
wrote:
> > > > Okay, suggestion: Increase the number of tags that 'stick'.
> >
> > So suggested.
> >
> > It's a server change, though -- maybe a major one (hey, don't ask! ;)
> > --
> > but suggested, anyway. Just don't hold your breath.
> >
>
> Ok, when talking about server changes..and possible memory problems
> again.
> What about taking the problem at the root? Like adding more memory to the
> server machine? This is quite likely much cheaper than to pay a
> programmer to hack efficient server code.
> (Just checked at Kingston... max memory for such an old sparcstation is
> 512MB.. if we are are not there yet, adding 64MB is at about $100.)
You'd think. For you & me, they're giving memory away. It seems that,
for the ancient Sparcstation that runs the server, an additional 32M of
memory costs something like $800.
Still, it seems cheap, if you ask me.
...But Joe rarely asks me, when it comes to matters of budgetary
concerns ;) I guess I'll have to SACWAG, and spend however much of my
own money I want! <G>
Frank Böhm / DSP
> In article <2002012211291...@fhm.edu>, Hor <t...@fhm.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Okay, suggestion: Increase the number of tags that 'stick'.
>>>
>>> So suggested.
>>>
>>> It's a server change, though -- maybe a major one (hey, don't ask! ;)
>>> --
>>> but suggested, anyway. Just don't hold your breath.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, when talking about server changes..and possible memory problems
>> again.
>> What about taking the problem at the root? Like adding more memory to the
>> server machine? This is quite likely much cheaper than to pay a
>> programmer to hack efficient server code.
>> (Just checked at Kingston... max memory for such an old sparcstation is
>> 512MB.. if we are are not there yet, adding 64MB is at about $100.)
>
> You'd think. For you & me, they're giving memory away. It seems that,
> for the ancient Sparcstation that runs the server, an additional 32M of
> memory costs something like $800.
>
> Still, it seems cheap, if you ask me.
>
> ...But Joe rarely asks me, when it comes to matters of budgetary
> concerns ;) I guess I'll have to SACWAG, and spend however much of my
> own money I want! <G>
Honestly, that's very well overpriced ;)
And since we dont sell to USA, check out http://www.memoryx.net
Haenk
Kojiro
>
> you can do what ashe does and go with groups that are organized and
> experienced enough to recognize what healers have shares from what
> fighters and support those. it's amazing how simple this all can be if
> you're with a group that knows what it's doing.
The downside, though, is that folks would risk having to spend time
with you.
> PLUS...
>
> ashe is a kick-ass enough healer that when things get stressed she can
> heal fighters that aren't sharing without much of a sweat. yes, even the
> big fifth-circle zos...
Yar, dude, and Koji is a kick ass fighter! He can solo the toughest
monsters, so when things get stressed, it doenst matter! Everyone
should be more like Koji!
> I know, I know... these are solutions that take skill, and effort, and
> forethought and all that, but really... it's not that hard.
>
> it does mean that you have to be liked by intelligent, experienced
> exiles though... that might be more difficult for y'all.
Aww. You DO want someone to like you. Thats so sweet.
-Kojiro
Stephen McManus
GM" <HelpfulGM@*no-spam*playnaked.com> wrote:
>
> That's what I'm saying -- to me, saying "oh, sorry, our hunt is fully
> x-shared and 'full'" is silly. Now, if you were to say "you know, 30
> people don't actually FIT in the queen's chamber", that makes sense.
Sure, 30 people fit in the QC, but that's far more than you need to hunt
there, and far more than the area can support.
Andl that's the problem, the hunt becomes rather frustrating if, after
letting 20 more people (or whatever) join your hunt, you start losing out
on experience/coins (be it from shares or from tags getting rotated out).
Maybe it's not frustrating to YOU but to 90+% of players, I think it is.
> Or
> "sorry, the 5 of us want to continue practicing some very tight tactical
> manuevers" or "sorry, some of us are on a schedule, we can't wait"...
> those all make sense to me.
>
> "I'm fully shared, you can't come" doesn't make sense to me.
It's usually not a question of X sharing with fighters, but if you don't
NEED 6+ healers, why allow more to join you? It's just going to be more
hassle rotating shares (as other posters mentioned), as well as
decreasing the amount of experience gained by the healers.
Azriel
> In article <B872C45D.6482%co...@mac.com>, Lex <co...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In fact,
> > there are healers who will cad me for 1 second just to get me to change
> > shares and then move on, which is why I don't use the sharecads macro
> > anymore.
> >
> > Lex
"In fact, there are [fighters] who will [share] me for 1 second just
to get me to [raise their fallen, rat, bitten, dragged-to-town
carcass] and then move on, which is why I don't [heal the bums]
anymore." ;-)
> Are you sure that that is what's going on inside a healer's
> head? In a group where many fighters are taking damage at once,
> you'll often find me starting to cad someone, only to abruptly
> change my mind as a tactical decision. It has nothing to do with
> the fact that someone is sharing me or not.
>
>Slyph
Gotta agree. I detest sharecads. Never use it as a fighter; don't
appreciate it as a healer. I prefer a person to choose to share with
me, or that I actively choose to share with someone.
When thinking as a healer, I prioritize and change who I heal in a
party _very_ dynamically. Is someone very close to falling? But is
he an idiot who won't back off when red if I start helping him? Is
the primary bricker or rod point hurting? Should I heal Exile A to
white, or stop with green because I see many other yellows around? Is
someone so close to falling I need to burst them? Etc, etc. It's not
so very different from the tactical judgement a good fighter uses:
when to attack, when to get out of the way, when to brick or wait for
someone else in the party.
I doubt many healers are busy 'stealing' shares. Even in a mob, it's
not like a healer can snap up autocad shares and kick back, doing
nothing. They are just being thoughtful and careful healers. Watch
good healers at work, and appreciate what they do.
Azriel
Warren J. Dew
A party of 6 persons or less might be far from ideal, as far
as gaining experience is concerned.
I think the 6 and 10/15 magic numbers don't have to do with optimizing
experience so much as with minimizing hassle. As long as you can share
everyone in the party - or, with bigger parties, all the healers - things are
simple and everyone is happy. With a party of, say, 7, you get to have the
share rotation problems, or you have to be able to make sure the shares are
equitably divided and that the one person that isn't shared doesn't take it
personally.
Minimizing hassle is a pretty reasonable way to play a game. Most people get
plenty of hassle outside the game.
A "kill" only tells you that you did not get 100% experience
possible from a tag, but neither did you get 0% (unless this
has changed).
Minor nit, but I remember seeing a post from a GM that the break points were
not 0 and 100, but some low number and some high number. But as you say,
there's a really broad range within the "kill" label.
EDitchburn
>will get rotated out and get almost no experience for the hunt. When 6
>healers are there, if one is designated for running stuff s/he gets rotated
>out for most of the hunt. Usually this person is the best for running stuff
>so keeps the job for the entire hunt.
These are both common problems. Another varient is the healer who heals other
healers. I've seen this happen a number of times... If you are a 1st circle
healer in a tough place, sometimes the smart thing to do tactically is to heal
Thuja/Jade/Slyph/Other-Super-Healer while they cad the fighters. The problem
with this is that you don't get shared by any of the fighters.
Basically there are a lot of ways in which the sharing system effects people
who rely on shares in a negative way. It makes me glad my primary character is
a fighter and has the luxury of not worrying too much on her own behalf. On
the other hand I do worry on behalf of the healers and mystic whom I play with.
I want them to have a good time. Maybe that is lame... lots of people seem to
think I should quit worrying about mystics.
Elizabeth
Helpful GM
> A "kill" only tells you that you did not get 100% experience
> possible from a tag, but neither did you get 0% (unless this
> has changed).
>
> Minor nit, but I remember seeing a post from a GM that the break points
> were not 0 and 100, but some low number and some high number.
It depends on how you count.
Does "100%" mean "normal payout for an evenly matched fight" (the
original meaning)? Or does it mean "the maximum possible to get from
this monster (the New Meaning)?
"Slaughter" means "0"
"Kill" means "> 0 but < A Whole Bunch"
"Vanquish" means "A Whole Bunch, or more"
Helpful "*AND* informative!" GM
Hidden
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <20020122160159...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
> psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
>
> > A "kill" only tells you that you did not get 100% experience
> > possible from a tag, but neither did you get 0% (unless this
> > has changed).
> >
> > Minor nit, but I remember seeing a post from a GM that the break points
> > were not 0 and 100, but some low number and some high number.
>
> It depends on how you count.
>
> Does "100%" mean "normal payout for an evenly matched fight" (the
> original meaning)? Or does it mean "the maximum possible to get from
> this monster (the New Meaning)?
>
> "Slaughter" means "0"
>
> "Kill" means "> 0 but < A Whole Bunch"
>
> "Vanquish" means "A Whole Bunch, or more"
Question:
Let's say for Fighter X, monster A is worth 101 exp, and vanquish is 101
or above. When he gets 1 more Regia and that monster is worth 100 exp, a
"kill", is he getting, for all intents and purposes, roughly the same
ammount of exp hunting it?
--
HWC for Hidden <hid...@no-op.com>
"It burns when I ruminate :("
Helpful GM
<hid...@no-op.com> wrote:
Question: Is "100" roughly the same amount of XP as "101"? If so, then
yes. Otherwise no.
Helpful "is this a trick question?" GM
Honest-to-goodness, I think the answer to the question you mean to be
asking is "yes", but heck if I can figure out why you're asking it,
hence the possibility that I have no idea what you intend.
Hidden
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> Question: Is "100" roughly the same amount of XP as "101"? If so, then
> yes. Otherwise no.
>
> Helpful "is this a trick question?" GM
>
> Honest-to-goodness, I think the answer to the question you mean to be
> asking is "yes", but heck if I can figure out why you're asking it,
> hence the possibility that I have no idea what you intend.
In an easier to digest form:
Is there any functional difference between a vanquish and a kill besides
a rough indicator of experience gained? I remember a while back the idea
of a low vanquish being twice the ammount of the highest kill was
popular.
Helpful GM
<hid...@no-op.com> wrote:
> In article <HelpfulGM-E3795...@ca.news.verio.net>,
> Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> > Question: Is "100" roughly the same amount of XP as "101"? If so, then
> > yes. Otherwise no.
> >
> > Helpful "is this a trick question?" GM
> >
> > Honest-to-goodness, I think the answer to the question you mean to be
> > asking is "yes", but heck if I can figure out why you're asking it,
> > hence the possibility that I have no idea what you intend.
>
> In an easier to digest form:
>
> Is there any functional difference between a vanquish and a kill besides
> a rough indicator of experience gained?
None that I know of
> I remember a while back the idea
> of a low vanquish being twice the ammount of the highest kill was
> popular.
Yeah, well... exiles have theories -- go figure ;)
Hidden
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> None that I know of
Thanks!
Mike
> Are you sure that that is what's going on inside a healer's
> head? In a group where many fighters are taking damage at once,
> you'll often find me starting to cad someone, only to abruptly
> change my mind as a tactical decision. It has nothing to do with
> the fact that someone is sharing me or not.
>
> Oh, I know there are healers out there that get upset over
> the share situation, and some probably do what you mentioned
> above, but there are tons of us who understand that it can be
> difficult for fighters to constantly juggle shares, and we don't
> mind being left without some shares.
>
> -Slyph
Yes, I am SURE there are healers that do this. On OOB raids I have had
more than a few healers flash me with their cads from time to time when
we are white and just standing around. The only reason to do this would
be to draw out shares from sharecads. I hate that macro too, so I dont
care. But on big raids there are many fighters that do use it and I bet
its a great way to get shares.
Michael
Mike
> In an easier to digest form:
>
> Is there any functional difference between a vanquish and a kill besides
> a rough indicator of experience gained? I remember a while back the idea
> of a low vanquish being twice the ammount of the highest kill was
> popular.
Contrary to what some people seem to think, there is a difference from
one vanq to another. There is a cap on the exp you can get from one
critter (so a newbie wont get 50 ranks for tagging a Cold Lyfe), but its
a good big higher than the lowest vanq level.
Michael
Mike
> Andl that's the problem, the hunt becomes rather frustrating if, after
> letting 20 more people (or whatever) join your hunt, you start losing out
> on experience/coins (be it from shares or from tags getting rotated out).
> Maybe it's not frustrating to YOU but to 90+% of players, I think it is.
Keep in mind, if we want another 100 atkus for our chars we cant just
hit the button to give it to them, we have to earn it. If I was a GM I
wouldnt give a fuck about tags either.
HGM might not do this, but I know other GMs have.
Michael
Lex
>
> Let's say for Fighter X, monster A is worth 101 exp, and vanquish is 101
> or above. When he gets 1 more Regia and that monster is worth 100 exp, a
> "kill", is he getting, for all intents and purposes, roughly the same
> ammount of exp hunting it?
I think they are worth about the same, minus maybe 1% or something small
that you wouldn't really notice.
I noticed I get a rank about every 50-80 vanqs, or every 70-130 kills, or
some mixture of vanqs and kills. This has been true for a long time, even
back when I was 1st circle. Hunting things that are high kills gets me
about as much XP on a hunt as low vanqs, so I don't mind hunting things I
kill.
Even things I am close to slaughtering, like when hunting coins in the
forests (I slaughter maybe 2/3 of artaks) I can move up a message after
20-40 "low" kills.
Lex
Lex
>>> there are healers who will cad me for 1 second just to get me to change
>>> shares and then move on, which is why I don't use the sharecads macro
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Lex
>
> "In fact, there are [fighters] who will [share] me for 1 second just
> to get me to [raise their fallen, rat, bitten, dragged-to-town
> carcass] and then move on, which is why I don't [heal the bums]
> anymore." ;-)
I'm sure there are fighters who do that too.
>> Are you sure that that is what's going on inside a healer's
>> head? In a group where many fighters are taking damage at once,
>> you'll often find me starting to cad someone, only to abruptly
>> change my mind as a tactical decision. It has nothing to do with
>> the fact that someone is sharing me or not.
>>
>> Slyph
>
> Gotta agree. I detest sharecads. Never use it as a fighter; don't
> appreciate it as a healer. I prefer a person to choose to share with
> me, or that I actively choose to share with someone.
>
> When thinking as a healer, I prioritize and change who I heal in a
> party _very_ dynamically. Is someone very close to falling? But is
> he an idiot who won't back off when red if I start helping him? Is
> the primary bricker or rod point hurting? Should I heal Exile A to
> white, or stop with green because I see many other yellows around? Is
> someone so close to falling I need to burst them? Etc, etc. It's not
> so very different from the tactical judgement a good fighter uses:
> when to attack, when to get out of the way, when to brick or wait for
> someone else in the party.
Some healers are much the way both of you describe. Some are more
interested in your share than doing what's best for the group.
> I doubt many healers are busy 'stealing' shares. Even in a mob, it's
> not like a healer can snap up autocad shares and kick back, doing
> nothing. They are just being thoughtful and careful healers. Watch
> good healers at work, and appreciate what they do.
>
> Azriel
Thank you so much for showing me how stupid I am! I *will* pay attention to
healers in the future - something I have never ever done before. It must be
wonderful to know that everything you "doubt" is 100% untrue.
Lex
Phelps
mike...@aol.com (Mike) wrote:
> Yes, I am SURE there are healers that do this. On OOB raids I have had
> more than a few healers flash me with their cads from time to time when
> we are white and just standing around. The only reason to do this would
> be to draw out shares from sharecads. I hate that macro too, so I dont
> care. But on big raids there are many fighters that do use it and I bet
> its a great way to get shares.
I click people with white tags to make sure they are full because I
have lots of spirit and nothing better to do with it.
Damn I'm evil.
HWC for Phelps of the Evil brach of the Phelpses of the World
obBalanceTaxSDB
--
Affiliation medals are tyranny.
Lauri Fried-Lee
Mike wrote:
I get flashed by healers with their cads too, and I'm sure they don't want
my share. If someone is white you can't tell if they are healed to full.
I often bump into the fighters who are white while we are standing around
to see if they can use a touch up. I think some healers also have
automatic cads. Anyway, I'm sure a healer who actually uses a cad will
speak up. :p
Lorikeet
Hidden
Lauri Fried-Lee <frie...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I get flashed by healers with their cads too, and I'm sure they don't want
> my share. If someone is white you can't tell if they are healed to full.
> I often bump into the fighters who are white while we are standing around
> to see if they can use a touch up. I think some healers also have
> automatic cads. Anyway, I'm sure a healer who actually uses a cad will
> speak up. :p
>
> Lorikeet
I have no proximus, but sometimes flash my staff at unshared fighters
before moonstoning them to get the share so I don't drain as much. I
only do this in the Foothills when they have sharecads on, of course.
Doing it just for the share is pointless, since if they don't need
healing, they're probably not fighting/getting exp any way.
--
His Holiness,
Hidden T. Thoom
High Priest to Mak'ros and
LIFE Explorer
ser Slyph
> I get flashed by healers with their cads too, and I'm sure they don't want
> my share. If someone is white you can't tell if they are healed to full.
> I often bump into the fighters who are white while we are standing around
> to see if they can use a touch up. I think some healers also have
> automatic cads. Anyway, I'm sure a healer who actually uses a cad will
> speak up. :p
>
> Lorikeet
This is a practice I do almost constantly on a hunt, cadding
each member of a party during a lull in action, to make sure
we're all in peek condition for the next round. I, personally,
don't care if someone isn't sharing me-- if you're in my party,
you're part of the equation that affects our success, and you get
healed.
While some foolish healers might flash cads to try to get
shares without planning to do any healing at that time, the
practice can only yield a few long-lasting shares in a crowd, as
other healers will probably come along who are actually doing
some healing. It just seems unlikely that a healer can progress
much on such a shady practice.
And healers that pay good attention to fighters in a group
will always enjoy better share coverage, anyway. Healers, this
is the secret to gaining experience. *gasp* :)
But, if you create a macro that introduces some automation
into your behavior, you open yourself to possible exploitation--
no sympathy from me.
Axell
> I've suggested something like this on hunts and people hate it. In fact,
> there are healers who will cad me for 1 second just to get me to change
> shares and then move on, which is why I don't use the sharecads macro
> anymore.
Using a cad-share macro is just a lack of respect for the healer.
If you are a fighter and you want to stay alive, you have to take care
of your healers. With a macro, its not the case, the fighter dont even
know with whom he is sharing. You can be unshared in some critical
situations, killing all your party.
Overal, its just as bad as starting to share healers only when you are
fallen.
--
Axell
Hor
Frank Böhm / DSP <fr...@dsp-info.com> wrote:
> in article [ARTICLE], Helpful GM at [ADDRESS] wrote on [DATE]:
> > You'd think. For you & me, they're giving memory away. It seems that,
> > for the ancient Sparcstation that runs the server, an additional 32M of
> > memory costs something like $800.
> >
> > Still, it seems cheap, if you ask me.
> >
> > ...But Joe rarely asks me, when it comes to matters of budgetary
> > concerns ;) I guess I'll have to SACWAG, and spend however much of my
> > own money I want! <G>
>
> Honestly, that's very well overpriced ;)
> And since we dont sell to USA, check out http://www.memoryx.net
Nice page... <http://www.memoryx.net/sparc10.html>
Some BK to the person who told Joe the $800 fairytale 8))
--
___ ___
/ | \ ___________ |
/ ~ \/ _ \_ __ \ | EMAIL : t...@fhm.edu
\ Y ( <_> ) | \/ | WEB : www.xcdroast.org
\___|_ / \____/|__| |
\/ All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
Lex
fact,
> > there are healers who will cad me for 1 second just to get me to change
> > shares and then move on, which is why I don't use the sharecads macro
> > anymore.
>
> Using a cad-share macro is just a lack of respect for the healer.
Suppose it's the first time you've been to DP, you've never had so many
different healers healing you at one time, and you feel you're spending all
your time paying attention to shares and no time paying attention to what's
going on around you. Then someone tells you there's a way to automate it,
so that you're always sharing the person healing you. You're suggesting
trying it out shows lack of respect?
Note that there are healers who have insisted fighters use sharecads.
> If you are a fighter and you want to stay alive, you have to take care
> of your healers. With a macro, its not the case, the fighter dont even
> know with whom he is sharing. You can be unshared in some critical
> situations, killing all your party.
Which is why I stopped using it.
Lex
Axell
> Suppose it's the first time you've been to DP...
Actually, many high level fighters use share-cad macro.
--
Axell
Babajaga
enti...@angelfire.com (Entil'Zha Mithraell) wrote:
> It's much more fun if nobody gets annoyed and leaves, though. Honest.
While I agree in principle with HGM that limiting a groupsize based on
exp is petty and lame, there are other reasons for this to happen.
Entil and Kiriel have written some of it. Having more than 5 healers on a
regular hunt is a hassle, especially when there is really no need for 6
healers, or where there is also a mystic that you need to rotate in. I am
one of those that do that, even on hunts..
What strikes me personally, is that CL has moved from a game where a group
of 6 could manage pretty well - to a game where the norm is more around
10-15 in a party in tough places. The sharelist of 5 hasn´t moved
accordingly. Isn´t that a bit skewed? Now we have places that need a
whole lot of healers and boosting mystics. Players have tried to overcome
the sharelimit by using sharecadmakro, by share locking some, and let the
rest rotate.
I can´t use that thing since in a big raid, it goes wild and makes my
connection crawl. Baba is one of those that will trip whenever a text
message appears in the textfield. Just imagine what a long list of "You
share with exileX" do...
Anyway, the sharelimit on 5 is probably hard to change, but CL isn´t a
game where the ghroup of 6 is feasible anymore.
Taglimit of only 10 is skewed though, for the same reason others have
stated. Not the exp. per se, but when you have spent 20+ min killing one -
it´s not fun to not get credit. It´s annoying.
tovemi
--
Babajaga Vanimalda, the Fleet <http://www.red-quill.com/babajaga/>
Fellowship of the Red Quill <http://www.red-quill.com/>
remove the SPERRE to reply
Babajaga
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> Different people will enjoy different sized groups. The game designers
> hope that people will find the most fun playing in groups of "more than
> one", but the ultimate size of your group is up to you.
Have to arrest you here. Cause the ultimate size of a
group is not only up to us.
The size of a group needed to go to areas is
dependant on the design of the area.
It´s not a player-choice so much as it is a game
mechanical thing, or maybe the word is dynamic.
Some observations:
* Many monsters in open areas requires many
characters. Double that number if there is no
possibility to use Zu. Triple if many of these
monsters can´t be run, ie their AI is the roaming kind.
* Monsters that hit/throws/spits damage worth
of 200+ histia/higgrus requires more characters,
ie more healers.
* A group doubles if the indviduals in the group
are weaker than what is needed.
* The above requirements will lessen after
a year....
These are the things that makes so many areas
require many characters. While a group of 14
has a good chance of making it to the boatmaker
on KI at day, at night - that group may need to be
20-25 to have the same chance of success - depending
on the individuals strength.
A group of 14 could manage in EP before the changes.
Now a group of 20+ is needed, just to have enough
histia/higgrus/horus to divide.
Etc..
The group size is very much determined by the
designer choices, not the player choices.
For the designer the leap from 14 to 20 may
not be so much. For players it´s a huge step,
as it is from the small group of 8 to the larger
at 14.
To use an example:
If you lessen the amount of damage the Astral Drake
and the "don´t remember the name" Ice wyrm does -
you effectively reduce the required groupsize by 5+.
That´s how it works. It´s all in the area design, and
this is the effect of the designer´s decisions.
Personally, I prefer the size of 5-8, but in not many
areas is that possible. I also think that only a very few
places should require the size of 20+, basically
because gathering that kind of size is at best hard,
and in some time zones impossible.
I might be wrong but I think it looks like this:
Limit being gathering such a group without too much
planning and weeks of notice in advance. The basis being
what others have mentioned : Shared clanning time.
(I am also referring to the upper level areas as well,
cause they are the ones I know about)
NZ, Hawaii the other side of the globe- 8 at best.
In the euro primetime - group of 14
The EST - 20+
PST - 30+
Weekends - 40+
What this means is that if you have designed
an area that requires 40+ you will only see it
tried on weekends, and once a month or less.
Of course, the more you try to gather the more
planning, organizing and discussion have to take
place.
Dandelion
Even if someone were actually concered with getting shares, there
doesn't seem to be much point in drawing your share while we're just
standing around. Especially since it's bound to change the second you
take a hit and someone else starts cadding you.
Actually, there are other reasons to target you with a cad when we're
just standing around.
White isn't the same as fully healed. I've heard, "Nobody ever heals
me to full" often enough (no, not from you) that I'm sure I check
annoyingly often without even thinking about it.
After the healing frenzy is over, the quickest way to switch back to
cad from moonstone (to avoid moonstoning one of the chained fallens)
is to target someone with it.
Those kinds of raids/hunts are mayhem. If I remember that So-and-so
was behind me when I crossed that last snell, and I'm wondering if
s/he made it across, cadding him/her is how I usually check.
It never occurred to me that all of these would be viewed as trying to
get a share. I really don't want you guys to think that's what's going
on, every time you get cad spammed. I think that chances are pretty
good that most of the time it's one of these reasons, rather than
someone trying to get a share.
Dandelion
Helpful GM
baba...@SPERREred-quill.com (Babajaga) wrote:
> In article <1f6d121.1klyexf5tx66uN%enti...@angelfire.com>,
> enti...@angelfire.com (Entil'Zha Mithraell) wrote:
>
> > It's much more fun if nobody gets annoyed and leaves, though. Honest.
>
> While I agree in principle with HGM that limiting a groupsize based on
> exp is petty and lame, there are other reasons for this to happen.
[big snip, good stuff]
Msg fwded in its entirety, with my query about "is there anything we can
do about this frustration shared by many?"
Helpful GM
baba...@SPERREred-quill.com (Babajaga) wrote:
> The group size is very much determined by the
> designer choices, not the player choices.
I understand what you're saying, and I sympathise with your frustration
(see previous), however...
This goes both ways -- yes & no. How many people does it take to take
noids? Or OC (1)? 3? 5, maybe?
How many did it used to take, back when you were young? 50? "Everyone"?
So, you're currently faced with the pressure of "I want to go to new
hard place" countermanded by "...but I dislike huge, disorganized
groups" combined with "...but the only big organized group I know about
is a bunch of mean poo-heads that nobody likes" ;)
Yeah, we put that challenge in front of you. Yeah, the pressure's there
to check it out. Yeah, there are things that make it un-fun to go
there. Yeah, there are things that make it way-fun to go there. Yeah,
all these things go together, and it's hard to figure out.
Anyway, your suggestions are being heard -- it's not clear what, if
anything, will change, but folks are thinking on it.
greyhawk
Monster A is worth 200ep
Monster B is worth 100ep
Figther 1 is low level and vanquishes Monster A and kills Monster B
Fighter 2 is higher level and kills Monster A and slaughters Monster B
If a bus is leaving...hold it that is a different question
Fighter 1 gets 300 ep total for eliminating these 2 monsters
Fighter 2 gets 200 ep total for eliminating these 2 monsters
Is this correct?
Merlisk
<frie...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I get flashed by healers with their cads too, and I'm sure they don't want
>my share. If someone is white you can't tell if they are healed to full.
>I often bump into the fighters who are white while we are standing around
>to see if they can use a touch up. I think some healers also have
>automatic cads. Anyway, I'm sure a healer who actually uses a cad will
>speak up. :p
>
>Lorikeet
I confess! I flash important fighters with my Merc Staff during down
times to ensure they're full before setting on the next stage.
Although I'm usually too busy to do this when in the midst of a
battle, I do try to keep "bricks" (or what I think are important
fighters) very full, even sometimes at the expense of lower-ranking
exiles that are on yellow or lower, even if they're standing next to
me.
My healing rules, pretty much in this order:
1) Stay alive. Dead healers don't heal.
2) Heal the bricks. (If in a rod situation, brick = rod.)
3) Heal strategic healers.
4) Heal everyone else to at least green.
5) Heal dead people.
6) Heal everyone to full.
Since the order is as listed, I may not get to #6 until a down time.
This does have the effect on people using "sharecads" as "just getting
shares."
If you think healers are abusing "sharecads", perhaps we should change
it to allow for an array of blacklisted healers (for instance, could
it read the /ignore file?) Or, tell the offending healers to stop,
curse them, don't invite them on a hunt, sue them, or what have you.
--
Merlisk, Healer, Reference Librarian and General
Assitant to Helpful GM
Officially endorsed by the late Aethelred
Summoning with the blessing of Koric
http://www.sundragonclan.com/
Helpful .sig:
their = possessive of they - It's their house.
there = pronoun - There must be another exit.
there = adverb - Not here but over there.
they're = they are - They're going home.
Helpful GM
.com> wrote:
> Let me ask this in a different way.
>
> Monster A is worth 200ep
> Monster B is worth 100ep
What does it mean "...is worth N xp"?
> Figther 1 is low level and vanquishes Monster A and kills Monster B
> Fighter 2 is higher level and kills Monster A and slaughters Monster B
>
[snip]
>
> Fighter 1 gets 300 ep total for eliminating these 2 monsters
> Fighter 2 gets 200 ep total for eliminating these 2 monsters
>
> Is this correct?
I don't understand the question. If A is worth 200xp, and B is worth
100xp, how is it possible to only get 200xp for killing both?
---
I *THINK* the problem, here, is that your question is based on an
invalid assumption. There's no such thing as a "monster that is worth
100xp" without the context of a player.
By & large, similar to the way paper&pencil D&D works, XP is paid
according to the level of estimated challenge. That is...
*** ALL NUMBERS ARE FOR EXAMPLE ONLY
*** THE NUMBERS BELOW ARE TO ILLUSTRATE A CONCEPT
*** THE NUMBERS, THEMSELVES, ARE GUARANTEED WRONG
3 identical monsters, "Monster A", all "lvl 7 challenge" meet up with
* Fighter 1: lvl 7, even fight, "kill", 100xp
* Fighter 2: lvl 3, big challenge, "vanq", 200xp
* Fighter 3: lvl 17, no challenge, "slaughter", 0xp
---
But that wasn't the original question. The original question had more
to do with this:
* Monster A, a lvl-7 challenge, meets Fighter B, a lvl 4 fighter.
* Fighter B Vanquishes monster A and gets, let's say, 183xp.
* Fighter B trains 1 rank of whooziss, is now a lvl 4.01 fighter.
* B meets another, identical, monster A, but now "kills" it.
* The question was: does B get 175-182xp, or some other, much smaller,
amount, due to the transition into "kill" range, from "vanq"?
The answer is: to my knowledge, the transition is smooth, and he gets
"just a little less."
---
But, really, why would we care about exact formulae, anyway?! Play the
@#$% game! <G>
Mike
On DP raids its impossible to share every healer healing you, period.
You get 3-8 healers that all start healing you at the same time often.
I dont know about you, but i cant change my shares that fast. Share
cads does not help with this, so thats why I never bothered to use it.
Only the first healer that cads you gets the share, the others dont.
But there is no way you can share everyone healing you or keep track of
who you are shared with and about to unshare if you share another
healer.
If there are healers out there that its such a huge risk to them if they
get unshared then they need to go talk to respia.
Michael
Axell
> On DP raids its impossible to share every healer healing you, period.
> You get 3-8 healers that all start healing you at the same time often.
> I dont know about you, but i cant change my shares that fast. Share
> cads does not help with this, so thats why I never bothered to use it.
Why are you trying to share with every healer ?
Its not possible, dont try.
We know that you cant share with everyone.
But, if you dont use a macro:
- the healer you are sharing will take care of you.
- you can share someone in the rod (they do most of the work and dont
get any share with that share-cad macro).
- you help healers only using a moonstone.
Btw, using a share cad macro with 2 or 3 /share /lock make things worse.
> If there are healers out there that its such a huge risk to them if they
> get unshared then they need to go talk to respia.
The risk is for the party, not for the healer.
The healing speed, self healing ability while healing are different if
you are unsharing.
Unsharing someone healing you is discourteous and can be dangerous.
I still think that sharing with an healer is not just helping him to
heal you faster. Its a relationship based on trust.
--
Axell, healer
Lex
> get any share with that share-cad macro).
A-HA! This was the original complaint. Macro or no macro, rod healers
don't get as many shares. Ditto for healers that are the ones who always
run things. This seems unfair since they are as needed as healers who are
healing fighters to succeed. However, it is always better for the group's
success (ignoring how much experience any one person gets) if fighters share
the healer who is healing them.
This system means healers who rod or run things get almost no experience for
the hunt. It's not a matter of 6 healers each getting 5/6 of a share
because they are always being rotated. It's more like 4 healers each get
almost a full share and 2 other healers split one. To compensate, I will
try to rotate rod and running healers (or mystics) in when I get a chance...
...but this is the basic problem. The game mechanics are forcing me either
to (1) constantly juggle shares so that those that are not healing fighters
get some experience, or (2) not care that a healer or mystic isn't getting
any experience. I would rather not do either.
Lex
Ippon
> In article <babajaga-230...@158.36.159.130>,
> baba...@SPERREred-quill.com (Babajaga) wrote:
>
>> The group size is very much determined by the
>> designer choices, not the player choices.
>
> I understand what you're saying, and I sympathise with your frustration
> (see previous), however...
>
> This goes both ways -- yes & no. How many people does it take to take
> noids? Or OC (1)? 3? 5, maybe?
Noids: 2
OC1: 1
> How many did it used to take, back when you were young? 50? "Everyone"?
How young is young? There is a point of no return, at which the number of
exiles is not relevant to the chance of success(except for incredibly small
odds which I refuse to recognize for sake of simplicity).
OC1 might have required 5 or 6 low 2nd€ assuming they were reasonably lucky
that no rage/fury/locks were present.
Pre-defense boost days, noids might require 5 to 9 low 2nd€. Post defense
boost? depends on the available atkus.
Also understand that as the (damage/time) x (number of creatures) goes up,
the amount of time required to earn the ranks to solo an area goes up
faster. The ratio of "difficulty" to "time before solo" probably makes a
nice fit to the cube/square law. It will be a very very long time before
anyone can solo hunt KI at night successfully.
Ippon
Babajaga
<HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, and I sympathise with your frustration
> (see previous), however...
>
> This goes both ways -- yes & no. How many people does it take to take
> noids? Or OC (1)? 3? 5, maybe?
>
> How many did it used to take, back when you were young? 50? "Everyone"?
Yes. But there were alternatives. There were areas that were of the same
level that didn´t require so many.
> So, you're currently faced with the pressure of "I want to go to new
> hard place" countermanded by "...but I dislike huge, disorganized
> groups" combined with "...but the only big organized group I know about
> is a bunch of mean poo-heads that nobody likes" ;)
No. I am talking about : I want to go the places that are interesting, fun
and challenging - but they all require huge groups which 1) I think is
less fun that smaller ones 2) Is real work to organize and put together
and 3) Is hard to impossible in some timezones to get going and 4) There
are little to no alternatives.
CL is currently tailored for a group playing in the PST timezone, that
share the same clanning time and share the same goals, and can muster a
group around 20 each week.
I do understand that the PST time zone will always be ahead in a lot of things.
As long as some things are also placed in the Euro zone, I can live with
that - and have been.
I am asking for alternatives for us that play in other time zones. One of
those alternative ways is to think "smaller groups" in designing
interesting, fun and new areas. EP, KI at night, Foothills, the new QC
under Ash - all fun places. All around Baba´s level in terms of challenge.
All the entrance to questy things. ALL require larger groups than a
regular Euro clanner can gather. And the only alternative is the Valley.
Yes. I do understand that you think longetivity of an area. That it needs
to be interesting for a long time. One of the ways you all do that is to
make the area real tough. But when you design an area that requires a huge
group to go to, you are effectively shutting out a large portion of the
playerbase. First off - you are shutting out those with lesser time to
clan. I have been down that road so I will not go into that. Then, you are
also shutting out those with the required time to go there, but with less
players to choose from.
I also understand that in time, a group of 8 will be able to go to EP. But
as I wrote before, "now" is the time I play. I am not so interested in
things that I can solve/do one year from now than I am in something right
"now" to keep the interest, to be able to go to/solve/whatever.
> Yeah, we put that challenge in front of you. Yeah, the pressure's there
> to check it out. Yeah, there are things that make it un-fun to go
> there. Yeah, there are things that make it way-fun to go there. Yeah,
> all these things go together, and it's hard to figure out.
I hope you understand now where I think the "unfun" part is.
> Anyway, your suggestions are being heard -- it's not clear what, if
> anything, will change, but folks are thinking on it.
Please tell me you are not only thinking about it, but trying to do
something about it longterm:(
Yor
<Nathalie...@skynet.be> wrote:
I do because I have little choice in the matter. I literally have
almost no use of my arms so typing is pretty difficult to say the
least. I can't physically command-click or anything like that. I
either share somebody by clicking their name in the player list then
using the menu or just slowly typing it out (/share axe). Before
sharecads I use to either stop and just stand there for a few seconds
(in the middle of DP) every time I had to rotate shares among healers
or just forget rotating completely because stopping so often was
getting me killed too much.
Between sharelocking moonstoners and sharecads I now don't have to
rotate shares nearly as much during large group things which is less
typing. Less typing for me means I can more concentrate at the
business at hand.
I always try to share healers and respect them in the most
responsible way I'm able to. So please understand that sharecads is
NOT meant as disrespect and is actually necessary for some people.
HWC Yor
Kojiro
healer who is healing me. Using it, I only have to change shares
manually for non-cadders. There is no way that can be considered
disrespectful.
-Kojiro
Kojiro
> In article <GqEM3...@news.boeing.com>, greyhawk <"greyhawk"@fake
> .com> wrote:
>
> > Let me ask this in a different way.
> >
> > Monster A is worth 200ep
> > Monster B is worth 100ep
>
> What does it mean "...is worth N xp"?
It means the "even fight" scenario, as listed here:
> 3 identical monsters, "Monster A", all "lvl 7 challenge" meet up with
>
> * Fighter 1: lvl 7, even fight, "kill", 100xp
> * Fighter 2: lvl 3, big challenge, "vanq", 200xp
> * Fighter 3: lvl 17, no challenge, "slaughter", 0xp
-Kojiro
Helpful GM
baba...@SPERREred-quill.com (Babajaga) wrote:
> In article <HelpfulGM-3D181...@ca.news.verio.net>, Helpful
> GM
> <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> > I understand what you're saying, and I sympathise with your frustration
> > (see previous), however...
> >
> > This goes both ways -- yes & no. How many people does it take to take
> > noids? Or OC (1)? 3? 5, maybe?
> >
> > How many did it used to take, back when you were young? 50?
> > "Everyone"?
>
> Yes. But there were alternatives. There were areas that were of the same
> level that didn´t require so many.
If you could traverse them with fewer people, might that not be
considered "lower level"?
> > So, you're currently faced with the pressure of "I want to go to new
> > hard place" countermanded by "...but I dislike huge, disorganized
> > groups" combined with "...but the only big organized group I know about
> > is a bunch of mean poo-heads that nobody likes" ;)
>
> No. I am talking about : I want to go the places that are interesting,
> fun and challenging - but they all require huge groups
I get that. What I'm saying is: take a much smaller group -- say 3 of
your closest friends, and go to OC2.
That is, you are MAKING the challenge require additional people by
refusing to go to places that are challening with fewer people.
Btw, don't forget that I've forwarded your concerns and folks are
stewing on the problem -- I'm just trying to get you "up & running"
quickly, while we wait to see if anything changes. :)
> which 1) I think is less fun that smaller ones
Agreed. Take smaller parties. OOB too tough? Take your smaller party
someplace more to your level. Figure out what's challenging for your
particular hunt-group-of-6, or however many you like.
> 2) Is real work to organize and put together
Heh, tell me about it!
> and 3) Is hard to impossible in some timezones to get going
No fair, that's the same as #2 ;)
> and 4) There are little to no alternatives.
See above. Can Baba solo QC? NBC? TGBG? DT? Figure out a place
that's too tough for you to solo, but just on the edge. Then go with
just you and your favourite healer. Viola! Small party, intersting
challenge. :)
> CL is currently tailored for a group playing in the PST timezone, that
> share the same clanning time and share the same goals, and can muster a
> group around 20 each week.
>
> I do understand that the PST time zone will always be ahead in a lot of
> things. As long as some things are also placed in the Euro zone, I can
> live with that - and have been.
You're losing me. What has been "placed in the PST"? What would it
mean for us to "place some things in the Euro zone"? Let's say we said
"sure, great idea! We'll place things in the Euro zone for v218" --
what would you be looking for to see if we really did it?
> I am asking for alternatives for us that play in other time zones. One of
> those alternative ways is to think "smaller groups" in designing
> interesting, fun and new areas. EP, KI at night, Foothills, the new QC
> under Ash - all fun places. All around Baba´s level in terms of
> challenge.
Now I'm totally lost. Did you just name 4 things that are fun &
interesting for Baba and a smaller group?
> All the entrance to questy things. ALL require larger groups than a
> regular Euro clanner can gather. And the only alternative is the Valley.
Ok, you don't want to hunt QC, because it's boring. So, instead, you
want us to make some place that's interesting for a small group of
European players, that will bore 80% of the players (PST)?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just not getting what it is you
want/don't-have.
I still think the solution is for Baba to hunt in smaller groups. :)
It is the nature of things that the biggest, hardest, meanest areas will
be first discovered by the biggest, hardest, meanest groups. You don't
typically get to participate in those groups, unless you want to clan at
weird hours, your time.
> Yes. I do understand that you think longetivity of an area. That it needs
> to be interesting for a long time. One of the ways you all do that is to
> make the area real tough. But when you design an area that requires a
> huge group to go to, you are effectively shutting out a large portion
> of the playerbase.
...But only for now. Later, when you're tougher (and/or there are more
of you), you'll be able to hunt there. That's A Good Thing, right? Or
are you mad because others are hunting there NOW, and you want to, too?
The problem is, there aren't enough of you to hunt there now, so you
can't.
Surely The Valley isn't the only place Baba can hunt in a small group
and be challenged?!
> First off - you are shutting out those with lesser time to
> clan.
I'm totally missing the "I/DT/GMs/Joe/CL [am/is] shutting out" part. It
sounds a lot to me like you are shutting yourself out. What am I
missing?
> I have been down that road so I will not go into that. Then, you
> are
> also shutting out those with the required time to go there, but with less
> players to choose from.
Uh... you're kidding, right? "You are ranting for no reason,
whatsoever; but I have been down that road, so I won't go into
details"... ?!?!? I can't very well reply to you if you won't tell me
what the complaint is <G>.
...Or is this one of those things where I'm not supposed to reply, but
just say "you're right, Baba, it really sucks. Damn..."?
> I also understand that in time, a group of 8 will be able to go to EP.
> But as I wrote before, "now" is the time I play. I am not so interested in
> things that I can solve/do one year from now than I am in something right
> "now" to keep the interest, to be able to go to/solve/whatever.
So, let's say we made a place just like EP, but that 8 of you & your
friends could go to. Would that place not be terribly boring for 85% of
the clanners? Would they not then be griping in this very forum "give
us some CHALLENGE!!!"? And, a month later, would you not be saying "ok,
we did that, it's boring -- let's have something tougher"?
I give you the Orga Outback. Knock yourselves out! :)
> > Yeah, we put that challenge in front of you. Yeah, the pressure's
> > there
> > to check it out. Yeah, there are things that make it un-fun to go
> > there. Yeah, there are things that make it way-fun to go there. Yeah,
> > all these things go together, and it's hard to figure out.
>
> I hope you understand now where I think the "unfun" part is.
Sort-of. Actually, I don't think I do, because the part that I think I
understand seems unreasonable, and I know you to be a fairly reasonable
person, so that must not be it.
...Or should I just go away and never post here, again? ;)
> > Anyway, your suggestions are being heard -- it's not clear what, if
> > anything, will change, but folks are thinking on it.
>
> Please tell me you are not only thinking about it, but trying to do
> something about it longterm:(
Well, I put your previous post, in its entirety, before all the GMs with
my comment "there must be something we can do to help this oft-voiced
player-frustration", and several are working on it. That seems
long-term to me.
Now I'm trying to figure out how to make your clanning time happier
tomorrow -- since you just told me that you don't care about the long
term, you clan *NOW* (quoted, above.)
...Or is "tomorrow" the long term, to you? ;D
Mike
> I get that. What I'm saying is: take a much smaller group -- say 3 of
> your closest friends, and go to OC2.
>
> That is, you are MAKING the challenge require additional people by
> refusing to go to places that are challening with fewer people.
What quest is there in OC2? Baba it not just looking to hunt, she is
also looking to go to the places where the quests are.
> > which 1) I think is less fun that smaller ones
>
> Agreed. Take smaller parties. OOB too tough? Take your smaller party
> someplace more to your level. Figure out what's challenging for your
> particular hunt-group-of-6, or however many you like.
This might shock you, but most people dont like hunting places that will
never get them any ranks. When you hunt below your level that dont
happen.
> > and 4) There are little to no alternatives.
>
> See above. Can Baba solo QC? NBC? TGBG? DT? Figure out a place
> that's too tough for you to solo, but just on the edge. Then go with
> just you and your favourite healer. Viola! Small party, intersting
> challenge. :)
And no questing or exp. AKA big waste of time.
Michael
Sareth
> never get them any ranks. When you hunt below your level that dont
> happen.
Guess Sareth is not "most people." South Forest and Northern Plains are
definitely not rank-generators for him. Of course, Sareth is a coin whore,
not rank whore, so these areas are precisely the places for him. However,
it would be nice if there were more areas for us Coin Whores. Lake, SF,
NF... they all get so over hunted.
-HWC Sareth
Rising Claw, Bard, 2nd Circle Fighter, Pathfinder, Skinner.
Warren J. Dew
(1) constantly juggle shares so that those that are not
healing fighters get some experience, or (2) not care
that a healer or mystic isn't getting any experience.
Or (3) lock all your shares at the beginning of the expedition and trust that
those you aren't sharing are getting shared by someone else (or ask them and
make sure).
Yes, that means you accept a slight suboptimality from sometimes getting healed
by a healer you aren't sharing. On the other hand, that suboptimality may be
smaller than that from spending time managing shares when you could be focusing
on fighting.
It sounds to me like (3) is the most preferred solution by most of the healers
posting to this thread. Of course, they might not be a representative sample
... most of the healers who actually do use their caduceus to grab shares
probably aren't interested in posting that information.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Warren J. Dew
So, you're currently faced with the pressure of "I want to
go to new hard place" countermanded by "...but I dislike
huge, disorganized groups" combined with "...but the only
big organized group I know about is a bunch of mean poo-heads
that nobody likes" ;)
To some extent, this is inevitable. The most challenging places people can get
to are going to be gotten to by large groups, because large groups are more
powerful than small groups. Places that are challenging to small groups of
powerful characters will generally be walkovers for large groups; their secrets
will be revealed quickly, and people like Baba will lose interest in them.
On the other hand, there are some things that can be done to skew areas toward
either large groups or small groups independent of power.
Areas with large numbers of Orga lightning throwers are skewed towards large
groups, for example. Small groups can't use the 'divide and conquer' strategy
that they so often need to be successful, since all those magicians can hit
them anywhere in the snell.
Areas with a lot of blocking terrain, or that consist of small passages, are
skewed towards small groups, since large groups can't bring their numbers to
bear as well.
Another way to cater to small groups would be to have large areas that are not
very densely populated, so that the small groups can take on the critters one
at a time.
Clan Lord actually seems to have a pretty reasonable mix, though it does seem
somewhat skewed towards large group areas. More of the third type of area at
all difficulties might help, if you can afford snells that aren't heavily
hunted because they have low spawn rates.
Hidden
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> > which 1) I think is less fun that smaller ones
>
> Agreed. Take smaller parties. OOB too tough? Take your smaller party
> someplace more to your level. Figure out what's challenging for your
> particular hunt-group-of-6, or however many you like.
You just hit one of my biggest worries about the future of CL, so
I'll rant about it for a while. In CL there is a humongous shift of
hunting/party dynamics between lower and higher levels, that sometimes
makes me question how much farther can the game mechanics be stretched
before things have to be completely redone or a rank cap instated. Young
exiles (fresh off the boat) can't do anything by themselves, really, but
soon they can go to challenging places in groups of 4 or 5. As they grow
towards mid-level, things start becoming more interesting in slightly
smaller groups, of 2 or 3. Suddenly, they hit a point where they can't
do a damn thing with anything less than a leigon of companions.
For example, what's the next step up from the "rank whore circuit"
(LP, TGBG, RC, et al)? The Valley? Noth? DC? A reasonably skilled crew
of 3 exiles (2 fighters and a healer) can take LP almost without
blinking. To go to Dal'Noth, requires at least 12 very strong people and
plenty of Horus. Then the next step up are FH, KI, and the Valley, which
each require about 20 non-überexiles, a ridiculous number for the
average European clanner.
Going back to the example at hand, it is impossible for Babajaga
(just an example. Insert any of your other favorite 5th circle fighters)
to go somewhere that she can have a reasonable challenge with 6 people
and either
a) Find something new/solve a fun quest
or
b) Gain any experience whatsoever
At Baba's level, she *cannot* gain any experience in any area less
than OOB, which she probably can't do in the desired context of a small
group which won't be feasible until she slaughters everything, and even
places like OOB have already been completely explored/mapped/discovered
and made public. Sure, you could say "don't look at the maps", but it's
not the same as being the first to do it, and having that 'thrill' of
discovery.
--
HWC for Hidden <hid...@no-op.com>
"It burns when I ruminate :("
Ashe
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> ...Or is "tomorrow" the long term, to you? ;D
do you mean "tomorrow" PST or "tomorrow" EuroST?
helping to sort out the confusion...
--
Ashe
Witch, First Class
Sisters of Benevolence
Founding Member of SKA
Sareth
> groups, for example. Small groups can't use the 'divide and conquer' strategy
> that they so often need to be successful, since all those magicians can hit
> them anywhere in the snell.
/rant on
Where's the range weapons for the exiles, eh? The orga can hit from a
distance and we can't hit back! No fair! Foul! Wrong! I'm gonna hold my
breath until I get a bow!
/rant off
Heh. I feel better now.
Seriously though, ranged weapons would be nice, if it could be integrated.
I'm sure it's been discussed in the past multiple times, so I must assume
there is a reason it hasn't been incorporated. Can anyone provide the
reason for me? Thanks.
Lex
> your closest friends, and go to OC2.
>
> That is, you are MAKING the challenge require additional people by
> refusing to go to places that are challening with fewer people.
I think she also means places she can get SOME experience.
No one likes hunting "junk", and most of the stuff in OC2 would be junk to
someone Baba's level, even though it would still be challenging with just
her and one healer because of all the lightning, DV, and other stuff.
For example, I get much more experience in the savanna with a small group of
fighters because we can kill a bunch of stuff quickly, but I can get SOME
exp with just me and one healer. I might even get a vanq if I'm lucky.
Can you think of any places like this for a 5th circle fighter and a healer
friend?
Lex
Skirwan
> Seriously though, ranged weapons would be nice, if it could be integrated.
> I'm sure it's been discussed in the past multiple times, so I must assume
> there is a reason it hasn't been incorporated. Can anyone provide the
> reason for me?
Monsters wouldn't be smart enough to maneuver around obstacles to get at
someone shooting them, nor would they be smart enough to run away. In the
current system it's not (as) necessary for them to get at you, as whenever
you can hit them they can also hit you. Although in the current
configuration monsters aren't generally smart enough to run away, they'd
need to know how to if they could be hit from a location they can't reach.
There are a number of other game balance issues, but when this subject comes
up (every couple of months, usually) this one typically stands out as the
difficult one to fix - it would require rewriting the AI for every single
creature in the game, and solving a number of AI problems that are of
interest independently that haven't yet been solved.
--
TGO Skirwan
(This post is the work of a jigging Zo doing his HGM impression. Skirwan is
unaffiliated with Delta Tao and should not really be taken seriously about
much of anything. Ob: We need more NPCs named Skirwan, Ob: Balance Tax SDB)
Helpful GM
<hid...@no-op.com> wrote:
> In article <HelpfulGM-E4AA2...@ca.news.verio.net>,
> Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> > > which 1) I think is less fun that smaller ones
> >
> > Agreed. Take smaller parties. OOB too tough? Take your smaller party
> > someplace more to your level. Figure out what's challenging for your
> > particular hunt-group-of-6, or however many you like.
>
> You just hit one of my biggest worries about the future of CL, so
> I'll rant about it for a while. In CL there is a humongous shift of
> hunting/party dynamics between lower and higher levels, that sometimes
> makes me question how much farther can the game mechanics be stretched
> before things have to be completely redone or a rank cap instated. Young
> exiles (fresh off the boat) can't do anything by themselves, really, but
> soon they can go to challenging places in groups of 4 or 5. As they grow
> towards mid-level, things start becoming more interesting in slightly
> smaller groups, of 2 or 3. Suddenly, they hit a point where they can't
> do a damn thing with anything less than a leigon of companions.
Yeah, I worry about this, too. Except I think the solution should be to
cap the number of people in a snell to 10 ;D
Well, it's a silly solution, but think about it -- if we (designers --
of ANY game) could be assured that y'all wouldn't bring 80 exiles to
tackle any problem we put before you -- if we knew that there'd be a max
of 10 exiles -- we could place a lot more reasonable challenges down.
But the problem we face is that if we put down a reasonable sounding
challenge for a reasonable sized party, someone will bring 80 exiles and
raze the place. 6 months of development over in 8 minutes -- whee.
I know, it's frustrating for you, too -- I totally see that -- I just
thought I'd mention the other side of the coin. I'm not whining about
it, just mentioning that it goes both ways.
> For example, what's the next step up from the "rank whore circuit"
> (LP, TGBG, RC, et al)? The Valley? Noth? DC? A reasonably skilled crew
> of 3 exiles (2 fighters and a healer) can take LP almost without
> blinking. To go to Dal'Noth, requires at least 12 very strong people and
> plenty of Horus. Then the next step up are FH, KI, and the Valley, which
> each require about 20 non-überexiles, a ridiculous number for the
> average European clanner.
Hmmm, do we believe your numbers? Perhaps you could qualify your
statements with "...to go there and be guaranteed a safe return"? But
then, where's the challenge in a guaranteed safe return?
You're right, it's a problem. I have no idea what Joe's vision to deal
with it is. Joe?
> Going back to the example at hand, it is impossible for Babajaga
> (just an example. Insert any of your other favorite 5th circle fighters)
> to go somewhere that she can have a reasonable challenge with 6 people
> and either
>
> a) Find something new/solve a fun quest
Again, a player problem.
It is not possible to place an interesting challenge for 6 people and
expect that it will still be virgin by the time Baba & 5 friends get
there. (See Chum's retelling of the "Virgin Mary" joke, at Phelps'
expense, recently, for an idea of what we're up against.) By the time
Baba+5 get there, it's no longer new. The quest has been solved, and is
on 3 web sites.
...Unless you're going to tell me that you think it's a good idea for
the folks who find it to not tell anyone, to maintain "radio silence"
and protect the game's secrets. But if you tell me that, be careful
where it might lead you :)
> b) Gain any experience whatsoever
You're telling me that there is no place that offers a reasonable
challenge* for Baba+5 that they can get a lot of kills and the
occasional vanquish?!
* By "reasonable challenge", I mean "a fair fight" -- in a fair fight,
you come home dead 50% of the time -- 5 out of 10 visits are departs.
Now, that's hard-core strict-play -- to be more reasonable, let's go
with D&D's "uses 25% of the party's resources." That means that Baba+5
comes home with 2 in body-bags, needing some town-horus-ing to get them
back up. But, hey -- they were challenged, and got some good XP out of
the deal.
Either way, "in & out, lots of XP and no one ever worried about
departing" does not, in my book, constitute "an interesting challenge."
"Noting ventured, nothing gained", as they say...
Also, don't forget -- coins are readily exchanged for XP. Anywhere you
can go and coin-whore, you can rank-whore, instead. Oh, big deal, you
have to wait overnight for the exchange to take place. Whoo.
> At Baba's level, she *cannot* gain any experience in any area less
> than OOB,
I challenge this. In fact, I'll just out & say it's false. Anything
derived from this is, therefore, false.
> which she probably can't do in the desired context of a small
> group which won't be feasible until she slaughters everything, and even
> places like OOB have already been completely explored/mapped/discovered
> and made public. Sure, you could say "don't look at the maps", but it's
> not the same as being the first to do it, and having that 'thrill' of
> discovery.
See above. There can be no "first discovery" for a party of 6. Well,
there can, but not in Clan Lord. Or maybe in CL, but only with the kind
of tree-bumping that you guys hate. Anything that can be discovered by
Baba+5 has been discovered a long time ago by party-of-20.
...Not to mention party-of-6 that's stronger/more-disciplined/more
willing to take risks than Baba+5.
This is not a slamm on Baba -- she's great, and I appreciate her
frustration. I'm TRYING to help think of a solution. But the problem
is that what you're asking is not possible.
Unless I misunderstand you.
I hear you (and Baba) saying "make someplace cool & challenging for me &
5 near-level friends where I can get XP and have a shot at 1st
discovery." I'm telling you "it can't be done." It's a little like: I
wish that Mt. Everest wasn't so hard, so me & 5 friends could do it --
and I'd like a shot at being first, for that extra-special thrill.
Yeah, well, it's nice for me to want things <G>
Helpful GM
<awi...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <HelpfulGM-E4AA2...@ca.news.verio.net>,
> Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> > ...Or is "tomorrow" the long term, to you? ;D
>
> do you mean "tomorrow" PST or "tomorrow" EuroST?
>
> helping to sort out the confusion...
"Soon!" ;D
Helpful GM
> Areas with a lot of blocking terrain, or that consist of small passages,
> are
> skewed towards small groups, since large groups can't bring their numbers
> to bear as well.
I don't follow this.
Short of making an area so tight that a large group doesn't actually
fit, how do you use this to make an area more small-group friendly
without making it a cake-walk for larger groups?
> Another way to cater to small groups would be to have large areas that
> are not very densely populated, so that the small groups can take on the critters
> one at a time.
Same question -- so a large group just mows right through, right?
> Clan Lord actually seems to have a pretty reasonable mix, though it does
> seem
> somewhat skewed towards large group areas. More of the third type of
> area at
> all difficulties might help, if you can afford snells that aren't heavily
> hunted because they have low spawn rates.
We try to mix it up, but it's hard, as this thread has shown.
Helpful GM
wrote:
> > Areas with large numbers of Orga lightning throwers are skewed towards
> > large
> > groups, for example. Small groups can't use the 'divide and conquer'
> > strategy
> > that they so often need to be successful, since all those magicians can
> > hit
> > them anywhere in the snell.
>
> /rant on
>
> Where's the range weapons for the exiles, eh? The orga can hit from a
> distance and we can't hit back! No fair! Foul! Wrong! I'm gonna hold
> my breath until I get a bow!
>
> /rant off
I bet you 100c you breathe. That's 100c every breath. <G>
> Seriously though, ranged weapons would be nice, if it could be
> integrated.
> I'm sure it's been discussed in the past multiple times, so I must assume
> there is a reason it hasn't been incorporated. Can anyone provide the
> reason for me? Thanks.
www.google.com "bows", "arrows", "ranged weapons"
In short, no one's figured out how to make them so that they're not one
of either
* totally lame to the point of pointlessness or
* over powered and abusable.
The rest is qed or you have to go read google.