Pures, the historic problem child of GS.

[Ceyrin]

I decided to post this here since it seems like there's a fair number of people who don't read the officals anymore. Ya know.. because the depths of my trollery knows no bounds...



As I was posting in a different topic in the Wizard folder about something I have a vested interest in as a player, it suddenly occured to me the sort of decisions involving Game Balance generally happen against the favor of pure classes.

Since as long as I can remember playing Gemstone, my opinon and observation has always been that the pure classes are better than the square and semi classes. I did hear that once upon a time pures were TERRIBLE (I'm talking GS2 GEnie days here when ICE was still around, which I wasn't present for, but know someone who was and even has a street named after her old PC), plagued with barren spell lists and ineffective means by which to use the ones they did have. By the time I started playing in mid '94, this was not the case. Pures were absolutely the best group of classes available, and I think they still are. Why?

1 : Shorter roundtimes or non-hindering roundtimes (casting roundtime) for spellcasting actions.

The ability to attack every 3 seconds instead of every 5 (or more) turns in to a lot. A square hits 3 times in 15 seconds and a pure hits 5 times in 15 seconds. Does the square do more damage? Maybe. Is the square more vulnerable while doing this damage? Definately.

2 : Access to defensive spells negating the most predominant source of difficulty for any PC, the AS/DS calculation.

Most any pure worth their salt is able to generate enough DS to render nearly all AS/DS calculations irrelevant. What does that leave then?

CS/TD? This is generally only a problem when you are in an opposing realm and without outside spells IE: spiritual vs elemental.

Maneuvers? Historically, there weren't many maneuvers for a long time in GS, and only recently have more creatures been designed with more maneuvers. Combine this with the new(relatively speaking) CMAN system and now pures actually have a problem, and generally a big one too. A problem that I am definately not opposed to, because it makes things more interesting.

3 : Magic itself. The very essence of what makes a pure a pure is also the biggest problem in balancing them - particularly against non-pure classes, but sometimes even amongst themselves.

Even in the old days, by the time a pure reaches level 60 they're pretty much guarunteed to have access to 60 (or more) different spells. Some of which are entirely benign, like defensive spells. The utility and offensive spells however can have a wide range of potential applications. From innocent things like making a spirit servant pick up a pile of snow and move it, to being able to charge up for 600 seconds and continue to multiply damage for an already potent attack spell. This can become a lot of variables to account for. Add in magical items and scrolls and various GM-created items that generate or create magical/spell-like abilities and you've got a whole plethora of different combinations that can be generated on a regular basis.

What does this mean? The interaction of spells with other spells or spells with the players who cast them can generate non-intended effects, even when these things are tested to death by the dev teams and or players alike. Coupled with new spells being created/released the problem of "What if this spell is cast or used when this other spell effect is already in effect?" gets larger and larger. Coupled still with the knowledge that nobody is perfect and mistakes are frequently coded in to the more complex spells and you've got an increasingly large potential for a problem or even multiple problems.

The historic solution decided upon:

Nerf. In some cases this may have been warranted. While many may not agree with me, the Dark Catalyst of old was an absurdly over-powered spell. Is it better the way it is now? No, but that's mostly because the class that it was changed on still hasn't recieved any extensive development (I say this compared to empaths, clerics, and wizards - all of which have recieved at least twice as much attention based on my own observations) since then. As a side note, the only pure class I don't enjoy playing is sorcerers, and I absolutely love pures and only play pures because of my love for them.

I would imagine that in theory, some of these actions are taken to continue to narrow down the options that a 'pure' has available as a whole, so that the various interactions between the class and the spells it has access to do not continue to make an imbalanced choice a preferable one. Is this really the right decision though?

A long-lost but recently rediscovered option.

Prop-up. This has been a more recent development, and I'm glad to see it. Rogues and warriors have been getting the most attention from this sort of service, and they deserve it. I can only hope that this behavior trend continues. Speaking personally, any other game, table-top or MMO I have ever played I usually play what we would term 'squares' in Gemstone. Only in Gemstone do I play 'pures'.

The future of Gemstone.

This is obviously not yet written. I can only hope that for the sake of those who enjoy the game that the path of 'nerf' does not continue to be so heavily a tread upon road, and that those brave new GMs who have recently rediscovered the ability to 'prop-up' the classes who are obviously not up to par with pures will continue to do so and embrace this.

Generally speaking, taking things away from people and paying customers (and though we know you own it all and you can do whatever you want with it and we agreed to that when we signed up blah blah blah) you can't escape or dispute the fact that the majority of customers will continue to feel slighted and dejected over having something 'revised' in a fashion that detracts from what was present before the revision.

Push up and reach higher... balance is balance, no matter what form it takes. Why not give a little instead? Continue to give squares more choices and more options. Don't punish the players of pures because the development teams of old lacked foresight or creativity.

[Ashliana]

I'm pretty torn. My main is a pure casting empath, but my warrior is a lot more fun. The empath is exhausted while fighting in a warcamp in a matter of moments, and I can kill maybe 10-15 of them, in a troll camp weak to fire. Using 1106 or 1110, even fewer. Even while making use of blessing-powered 1107+sigil of power. My berserking warrior, on the other hand, can destroy camps with little risk and isn't vulnerable to the horde of bullshit combat maneuvers that my empath can easily be dropped to the floor, in offensive, and stunned, by.

I haven't tried in a long time, since I MA, but I'm pretty sure the empath wouldn't be quite so safe if I didn't do a full wizard spellup before going in. Self-spelled only, most likely die a lot--warcamping or not.

Also, the officials are near incomprehensible and annoying to navigate. Why they haven't licensed another forum engine ("we'd lose our archives! oh noes!" is bullshit) is incredible, but extremely Simutronics-like.

[Deathravin]

Warcamps are one thing. I've had the strange position to see what it's like to level several classes side-by-side these last few months.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Pure Bard is the easiest, highest xp/hr, fastest killing, lowest risk character I have. Between 2 and 34 mana the mob is dead, no matter what. The CS to TD Ratio is always insanely high. She could easily hunt +10 levels. She had a mana issue at level 30 when we flipped, but it slowly went away.
Keep in mind this means the mob is almost always dead between 3 and 9 seconds.
We had MAD points to train, she doubles in PF and dodge. Uses a shield but almost doesn't need it. After we didn't need the instrument anymore, the DS went up another 50 or so points because of having 1x brawling. This is a strong and fast build.

After that, the choice is easy. Pure Empath. We have two empaths, one swinger one caster. The caster kills things far quicker, with a minimum of risk. She had a mana issue before 50, 6 mana per cast is a lot. But the CS to TD ratio on typical mobs, it's not much of an issue. This one is a tank between 1125 and the sheer awesomesause that is 1130, she never gets hit.

Next in line is a toss-up between our Haste Wizard and Sorcerer.

Sorcerer is very much like the Empath, except a much lower general CS to TD ratio, +5 levels is still somewhat hard. But with things like 706 to stun mobs before starting to kill, or 711 for when mobs are immune or wake up, she's very safe. 719 on mobs that cast is almost as devastating as it was in the olden days. Very solid.

Haste wizard uses 909 to knockdown then pounds away. It's starting to get harder, but until 60s he could easily solo warcamps and would consistently tell me, "isn't this supposed to be hard?"


Now for the hardest.

Square Empath. This guy is a pain. He's finially considering a CS role, but until now he's been slow slow slow.

Ambushing ranger/rogue. These guys are consistently 20% less xp/hr than the casters, no way around it. I've tried and tried. They're just SLOW. And slow means vulnerable.

Our Paladin and warriors are pretty good. Still slow, but way less fragile. And we don't have a cleric.


Over all... Pure bard never gets hit with DS attacks. Her TD is high enough to never get hit there. And her 2x PF and dodge means she never has an issue with Maneuvers. This build is Broken guys.

Empath never gets hit with DS. TD is high enough. and Maneuvers might stun her but 1125 takes it away and she's right back fighting.

Sorcerer never gets hit with DS. TD is insane. But just has no answer to Maneuvers. They get her a lot. Usually on mobs that aren't stunnable.

Haste Wizard... mobs never get a chance to try anything. But if they did, DS is fine, TD is great, maneuvers could be a problem but never have been.

Ambushers... DS is low, gets hit sometimes. TD is low, gets hit most times. Maneuver defense ... the rogue 3x dodge and 3 ranks of evasion and 100 dex & agi... so... ya... but the ranger has issues with maneuvers.

Attackers... DS is low, gets hit sometimes. TD is low, gets hit most times. Maneuver defense is pretty good. Still get hit, but usually don't die.

[Celephais]

The game isn't balanced. End of story there. Any attempt they make at balance is polishing brass on the titanic. The game is old, GS3->4 might have solved some problems, but it didn't address the fundamentals of balancing classes in a game.

It's broken, they can't fix it without losing most of the player base, which they can't afford to do. The last thing they should be doing is nerfing, they should bring back all the things people loved (Haste II, old DC, etc), the nostalgia that makes people play, and throw balance out the window.

[AnticorRifling]

Shhh don't use logic it might break something.

[Ceyrin]

The game isn't balanced. End of story there. Any attempt they make at balance is polishing brass on the titanic. The game is old, GS3->4 might have solved some problems, but it didn't address the fundamentals of balancing classes in a game.

It's broken, they can't fix it without losing most of the player base, which they can't afford to do. The last thing they should be doing is nerfing, they should bring back all the things people loved (Haste II, old DC, etc), the nostalgia that makes people play, and throw balance out the window.

I dunno. I suggested they lower roundtimes for most weapon types across the board.

Ya know, when I think about adventurers in Gemstone, I think about epic characters from movies/videogames/anime etc. They're not slowly trudging along swinging their weapon once every 5 seconds. How boring is that? It's not exciting, and it's not fantastic.

I think a character that can tote around 700lbs of shit ought to be able to swing a weapon a little faster.

But again, the real problem as you put it lay in the fact that the professions aren't balanced at all. Unfortunately, Simutronics seems to have forgotten they're selling a game and are more interested in selling you an ideal.

Dunno about the rest of you, but I pay Simu for entertainment...

[SpiffyJr]

Are you not entertained?!

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/366974/are-you-not-entertained_medium.jpg

[Rallorick]

I guess I don't really see what balance matters, except in very few areas.

Granted, I've been gone from the game since about '98 or '99, before that I had played for about 4 years, off and on. Now that I'm back, I don't really play that often, just for fun now and then.

All of my characters are likely statistacly weaker than about 90% of the other people in the game, since I really don't look for what training path will make them strongest, what stats will lead to the best point yield, etc. But none of my characters, regardless of profession, have trouble killing things at their level or slightly above.

That was different back when you had to contend with 30+ people in every single hunting ground, and you needed to be faster or stronger just to get some experience... But anymore, I just don't see the point in wondering if my x level rogue is as strong as my x level wizard. They're just different.

[Celephais]

Simplest way to improve the game overnight:
Double the clock speed on the hosting computer (I don't mean overclock the computer, I mean whatever timing mechanism the application uses, cut it in half, double it, then double it again).

All RTs, across the board, cut in half. Mana pulses, exp absorption, XXX refresh rate, potion curing, mine cart rides, forging time.

Ideally a system that allowed for decimal RTs would be nice, but fuck it, this is simple an easy and the game becomes a shitton more fun.

[Fallen]

Simplest way to improve the game overnight:
Double the clock speed on the hosting computer (I don't mean overclock the computer, I mean whatever timing mechanism the application uses, cut it in half, double it, then double it again).

All RTs, across the board, cut in half. Mana pulses, exp absorption, XXX refresh rate, potion curing, mine cart rides, forging time.

Ideally a system that allowed for decimal RTs would be nice, but fuck it, this is simple an easy and the game becomes a shitton more fun.

Super Gemstone Fighter 4 Turbo!

[Celephais]

Super Gemstone Fighter 4 Turbo!

Don't worry, they'll also double the billing periods.

[DaCapn]

I guess I don't really see what balance matters, except in very few areas.

Granted, I've been gone from the game since about '98 or '99, before that I had played for about 4 years, off and on. Now that I'm back, I don't really play that often, just for fun now and then.

All of my characters are likely statistacly weaker than about 90% of the other people in the game, since I really don't look for what training path will make them strongest, what stats will lead to the best point yield, etc. But none of my characters, regardless of profession, have trouble killing things at their level or slightly above.

That was different back when you had to contend with 30+ people in every single hunting ground, and you needed to be faster or stronger just to get some experience... But anymore, I just don't see the point in wondering if my x level rogue is as strong as my x level wizard. They're just different.

Obviously my opinions will be largely based on my limited experience with various professions (rogue, wizard, bard only). But with a 10 year break followed by occasional gameplay, how much are you actually aware of? I play this game every day and I still feel like I have limited exposure. Even many players of capped characters have limited exposure because they have no clue what the game is like for mid-level characters right now (much less across various professions).

Here are some reasons to have game balance:
(1a) Hunting in groups: Being that rogues are comparatively slow and are high-maintenance, you're more of a flat tire than even a 5th wheel.
(1b) Difficulty of creatures is scaled according to overall difficulty for the various professions. We don't have enough hunting areas for this to be a non-issue. If we had innumerable hunting areas and little balance across professions, there'd probably be something for everyone (perhaps even many somethings!). There's 5 pure professions, 3 semis, and 2 squares. There's way more pures than anything else. Which set of professions do you think are considered the most when it comes to hunting areas?
(1c) Creature level should be the combat difficulty slider: You should always be able to pit your character against a specific type of challenge (i.e. slow+strong/fast+weak/swarmy/solitary/casters/swingers/etc) at a variety of creature levels. The method of increasing difficulty is often to just increase spawn rates. The result is almost always a faster fry for some professions and a near impossible challenge for others. There are few hunting areas and huge gaps for some professions that make this unbearable.

Quick fixes:
(2a) Get rid of RT locking/stacking. Possibly have an induced RT refresh instead.
(2b) Have dodge training factor into the CM rolls.
(2c) Grant more DS in offensive stances.
(2d) Change the CvA system. CvA should not be a heavy armor incentive. (On the humorous side: plate armor bolsters your defenses against warding roles for ingestion of moldy cupcakes).
(2e) Change spell research penalties to redux (the TP cost is already a large investment for squares).
(2f) Make spell hindrance scale more bard-like with AsG. Leg cover increases hindrance in some circles? Do these spells require dancing?

Moderate-heavier development:
(3a) Make training sacrifices consistent across professions (e.g. wizards & enchanting or empaths & healing vs. rogues & lockpicking).
(3b) Less tedium: alchemy, LM, guild partner reps, forging, sorcerer components/runes, etc.
(3c) Introduce more hunting areas to fill gaps. There should be areas of all types in all level ranges and no one should be forced to a single area in the whole game for any period of time.
(3d) Have more dynamical adjustments to the properties of hunting areas so that players can essentially mold the properties of a hunting area. Stealth should factor into spawn rates, for instance.

I don't think shaving RT would do a whole lot except make everything that currently happens happen faster.

[Deathravin]

On the humorous side: plate armor bolsters your defenses against warding roles for ingestion of moldy cupcakes

Have you ever tried to eat a cupcake in full plate? Even with that visor up that's gotta be quite the challenge.


Here's the deal. Simu doesn't have the money, time, or inclination to make these changes. They simply don't care. We're an after-thought to them now. Unfortunately they are so myopic that they stopped development on the one thing that could actually have given them some playing money.

They think their engine is going to save the MMO world. MMO development at light speed, eh. Well FFXIV started development about 24 months ago. Bioware's Starwars TOR started development about 54 months (that's 4 and a half years) ago.

FFXIV launches in 11 days.
Where's TOR?

So if you wanted to buy an engine to make a game... which would you choose?

[DaCapn]

Here's the deal. Simu doesn't have the money, time, or inclination to make these changes. They simply don't care. We're an after-thought to them now. Unfortunately they are so myopic that they stopped development on the one thing that could actually have given them some playing money.

One error in their thinking is that they don't seem to see the simple developments that could be made to improve gameplay. My own personal quick-fix wishlist would probably only take an afternoon for one reasonably competent developer. What you're saying is definitely true but it only becomes a problem when people start assuming that the required developments are larger-scale features.

Of course, saying that Simu misses the mark doesn't bring anything new to the table. How long it took them to implement Shattered is probably the most stunning example (they already know how to run multiple instances, they didn't need to develop new features, people were begging for it).

[Deathravin]

The point of another thread was that the code is so old, it would take much longer than an afternoon even for the best programmer in the world. Be like a Nascar driver trying to drive from LA to New York on a bicycle. No matter how good the driver, the tools to get you there are just inferior.

They need to make a new MUD platform that doesn't blow horse cock (call it the 'DBHC platform')... Then they need to re-create the game on the DBHC Platform... THEN they can move everybody over... Then they can code monks in a couple months rather than 7 everfucking years.

[IorakeWarhammer]

Ambushers... DS is low, gets hit sometimes. TD is low, gets hit most times. Maneuver defense ... the rogue 3x dodge and 3 ranks of evasion and 100 dex & agi... so... ya... but the ranger has issues with maneuvers.

Attackers... DS is low, gets hit sometimes. TD is low, gets hit most times. Maneuver defense is pretty good. Still get hit, but usually don't die.

do you use spike alone? my hunts in ogres are lightning fast with spike. but I guess in wyneb or the tower, since it's indoor, even with 625 the spikes just aren't as strong. but ogres are FOOD!! Jaeden has been hunting with 616 alone from 54 to 61.

[crb]

Most any character, regardless of profession, worth their salt is able to generate enough DS to render nearly all AS/DS calculations irrelevant. What does that leave then?


Fixed.

Until all spells go self cast, even a square can get enough spells to be protected. Also do not forget the CvA difference between plate and leathers is like a free cast of 219 plus 107.

Also often left out of many comparisons of professions is training costs. This is one of the reasons semi's rule GS4 (the other is the change to critter TDs to allow semi's to have the same (or better) warding margins on CS spells than pures). Semis, with a balance of physical and mental, convert less points.

Squares have more forgiving training costs and are better able to get ancilliary skills and be more flexible. This includes utility skills, but also magical skills.

Pures get shafted (clerics less so, sorcerers most) because we have to spend all our MTPs on magical skills. Our utility skills (things that everyone needs to train in) costs are higher than semis or squares, and if we want to address our weaknesses by training in say CM or Dodge, we have to spend... MTPs on them, which we don't have. For a warrior to address a weakness they can train in spells, with (for them) cheap MTPs, or scroll reading with (for them) cheap MTPS. For a pure to train in most physical skills to address their weakness, they have to spend both cheap (for them) PTPS, and expensive (for them) MTPS.

Then of course there is mana, and a lack of ability to aim our attacks at death crittable body locations.

[Fallen]

Any warrior training in spells to address TD inequities is a moron. That is by far the most inefficient means of correcting a problem I can think of.

[crb]

unless you're a rifter.

But sure, there are cheaper methods, but then again, we're talking about the players of warriors, we can't always assume they'll do the smart thing.

In the end though, a warrior training up scroll reading is going to be really cheap compared to a pure doing dodge or cm or even 1x in pt if you're not an empath. (fucking empaths).

[Morph]

bards are more broken than any pure! Friggin bards.

[Asha]

I want to see a pure bard hunting (high level) log.
I once saw Soulpie fly past at about 5 million mph annihilating the living fuck out of everything in OTF including my character but all I saw was one quick seconds worth of hunt before they were raising me at the barrier.
His CS tore straight through my Sorc TD no problem.

[Deathravin]

[Aqueduct]
You notice a gremlock, a ragged knapsack and a feras dagger.
Obvious exits: northeast, east, southeast, southwest, west, northwest
>
>prep 1030
You change your tune slightly, adding the element for Song of Sonic Disruption to your song...
Your spellsong is ready.
>
>cast #26619284
You weave another verse into your harmony, directing the sound of your voice at a gremlock.
CS: +386 - TD: +294 + CvA: +25 + d100: +60 == +177
Warding failed!
A gremlock reels under the force of the sonic vibrations!
Sound waves disrupt for 82 damage!
... 75 points of damage!
Spine ripped from the gremlock's body and thrown to the ground.
A gremlock collapses and his eyes roll up as he dies.

Sing Roundtime 3 Seconds.

I'll try to get you a full log later today.

[Asha]

:)

[Morph]

I'll try to get you a full log later today.

that's pretty good, but it's the post cap bards casting at like 520 against capped critters with TD's in the low 300s that really bothers me.

[DaCapn]

Fixed.

Until all spells go self cast, even a square can get enough spells to be protected. Also do not forget the CvA difference between plate and leathers is like a free cast of 219 plus 107.

Also often left out of many comparisons of professions is training costs. This is one of the reasons semi's rule GS4 (the other is the change to critter TDs to allow semi's to have the same (or better) warding margins on CS spells than pures). Semis, with a balance of physical and mental, convert less points.

Squares have more forgiving training costs and are better able to get ancilliary skills and be more flexible. This includes utility skills, but also magical skills.

Pures get shafted (clerics less so, sorcerers most) because we have to spend all our MTPs on magical skills. Our utility skills (things that everyone needs to train in) costs are higher than semis or squares, and if we want to address our weaknesses by training in say CM or Dodge, we have to spend... MTPs on them, which we don't have. For a warrior to address a weakness they can train in spells, with (for them) cheap MTPs, or scroll reading with (for them) cheap MTPS. For a pure to train in most physical skills to address their weakness, they have to spend both cheap (for them) PTPS, and expensive (for them) MTPS.

Then of course there is mana, and a lack of ability to aim our attacks at death crittable body locations.

Could you share with me the various professions you've played and to what level you've trained them? If anything comes up as more than 5-7 years old could you indicate that? (Just to establish a time frame that I'm familiar with).

Thanks.

[Drew]

Could you share with me the various professions you've played and to what level you've trained them? If anything comes up as more than 5-7 years old could you indicate that? (Just to establish a time frame that I'm familiar with).

Thanks.


That's a simple answer for him. Sorcerer. Done.

[JHarris]

Fixed.

Until all spells go self cast, even a square can get enough spells to be protected. Also do not forget the CvA difference between plate and leathers is like a free cast of 219 plus 107.


Squares -can- get the spells, but so can everyone else. I think people tend to forget that a square wearing 120 is not the same as someone self-casting 120. We don't get as much out of each individual spell since squares tend not to have lores or bonus spell ranks. Also, there are spells that specifically help with maneuvers - couldn't a pure put every one of those on just as a square is expected to wear a boatload of things?



Squares have more forgiving training costs and are better able to get ancilliary skills and be more flexible. This includes utility skills, but also magical skills.

Pures get shafted (clerics less so, sorcerers most) because we have to spend all our MTPs on magical skills. Our utility skills (things that everyone needs to train in) costs are higher than semis or squares, and if we want to address our weaknesses by training in say CM or Dodge, we have to spend... MTPs on them, which we don't have. For a warrior to address a weakness they can train in spells, with (for them) cheap MTPs, or scroll reading with (for them) cheap MTPS. For a pure to train in most physical skills to address their weakness, they have to spend both cheap (for them) PTPS, and expensive (for them) MTPS.


I'm not sure where you get this from. Squares end up spending so many points on physical skills that many (most?) have to convert a ton of mental training points to physical. Mental points are by no means cheap to squares. Also, for warriors specifically, the costs for magical skills are VERY high. In fact, I think the term utility skill should include AS and MIU, in which case squares and pures suddenly look a lot more balanced in their utility skill.

As far as the weaknesses go.. squares are by no means immune to maneuvers. Squares can be weak to them too if they don't know the maneuver. Pures have 1 weakness - maneuvers. Squares are weak to spells AND maneuvers (though less so on the latter).



Then of course there is mana, and a lack of ability to aim our attacks at death crittable body locations.

But mana becomes a lot less of an issue later game. In fact, I doubt its even much of an issue earlier on! (I leveled a Sorc up to 25 in Shattered hunting with 702/705 with no issues frying.) Yes, pures lack the targeting ability, but make up for it with soft RT (cast, run away, cast as necessary), faster spell time, guarded stance always, and, for CS spells, no EBP. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the higher level pure spells kill outright a good percentage of the time with lores or overtraining in the circle. Further.. what set up is there to most spells? For a square to get his aimed shot, there's usually a maneuver first. That's at least 8-10 seconds of time if there is no EBP. How long does it take a pure to usually kill something?

[DaCapn]

But mana becomes a lot less of an issue later game. In fact, I doubt its even much of an issue earlier on! (I leveled a Sorc up to 25 in Shattered hunting with 702/705 with no issues frying.) Yes, pures lack the targeting ability, but make up for it with soft RT (cast, run away, cast as necessary), faster spell time, guarded stance always, and, for CS spells, no EBP. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the higher level pure spells kill outright a good percentage of the time with lores or overtraining in the circle. Further.. what set up is there to most spells? For a square to get his aimed shot, there's usually a maneuver first. That's at least 8-10 seconds of time if there is no EBP. How long does it take a pure to usually kill something?

Do you mean the time between leveling whole rooms or the average time you spend in cast RT per critter?



>You intone a phrase of elemental power while raising your hands, invoking Cone of Lightning...
Your spell is ready.
You gesture at a polar bear.
You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at a major glacei!
AS: +332 vs DS: +165 with AvD: +45 + d100 roll: +58 = +270
... and hit for 104 points of damage!
The deep blue glow emanating from the major glacei goes dark suddenly.
The brilliant luminescence fades from around a major glacei.
The silvery luminescence fades from around a major glacei.
The bright luminescence fades from around a major glacei.

You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at a major glacei!
AS: +332 vs DS: +168 with AvD: +45 + d100 roll: +47 = +256
... and hit for 93 points of damage!
The deep blue glow emanating from the major glacei goes dark suddenly.
The brilliant luminescence fades from around a major glacei.
The silvery luminescence fades from around a major glacei.
The bright luminescence fades from around a major glacei.

You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at a frozen corpse!
AS: +332 vs DS: +120 with AvD: +37 + d100 roll: +22 = +271
... and hit for 165 points of damage!
Horrifying bolt of electricity crystalizes abdominal area. Spiffy but unfortunately also quite deadly.
The frozen corpse wails in terrifying pain one last time and lies still.

You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at a polar bear!
AS: +332 vs DS: +125 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +63 = +309
... and hit for 130 points of damage!
Arcing bolt of electricity galvanizes left leg to knee joint. Won't be using it for awhile.
The polar bear lets out a blood-curdling roar and dies.

You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at a polar bear!
AS: +332 vs DS: +124 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +78 = +325
... and hit for 112 points of damage!
Horrid jolt to neck explodes vocal cords. The polar bear gurgles in response.
The polar bear lets out a blood-curdling roar and dies.

You hurl a powerful lightning bolt at a polar bear!
AS: +332 vs DS: +170 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +99 = +300
... and hit for 127 points of damage!
Massive electrical shock turns head into shark bait. Time to feed the fish.
The polar bear lets out a blood-curdling roar and dies.

Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.

>stance def
Cast Round Time in effect: Setting stance to guarded.

>l
[Arctic Embankment]
You notice a major glacei (dead), a major glacei (dead), a frozen corpse (dead), a table leg, a large ice pick, a polar bear (dead), a polar bear (dead), a polar bear (dead) and some icy boulders.



Notes:
- 6 mana per kill
- Looks like I was level 46 at the time
- 50 irrelevant ranks of fire lore (no air or water)
- A hasted warmage could have done the same in 6 seconds of hard RT at best (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1171731)

[Celephais]

(no air or water)

Lightning 'lore' does not factor into cone casts.

[Fallen]

Lightning 'lore' does not factor into cone casts.


Emphasis on the last sentence.

518 · Cone of Lightning [CONELIGHT]
Duration: Immediate

Type: Attack

While Major Shock is quite powerful, it still is not a suitable defense against multiple opponents. Because of this, the Cone of Lightning spell was researched. It strikes as hard as a Major Shock, but the bolt arcs out in all directions and can hit many nearby targets.

Training in Elemental Lores, Air & Water, increases the damage done by this spell.

[crb]

Could you share with me the various professions you've played and to what level you've trained them? If anything comes up as more than 5-7 years old could you indicate that? (Just to establish a time frame that I'm familiar with).

Thanks.



sorcerer to cap
empath to cap
cleric to 60s
another empath to 60s
wizard to 60s
another wizard to 60s
a third wizard to 40s
a fourth wizard to 30s
rogue to 20s
warrior to 20s
ranger to 30s
bard to 30s
another warrior to 20s
third empath to 20s

I also have a capped rogue, but bought him at 97.

[crb]

Squares -can- get the spells, but so can everyone else. I think people tend to forget that a square wearing 120 is not the same as someone self-casting 120. We don't get as much out of each individual spell since squares tend not to have lores or bonus spell ranks. Also, there are spells that specifically help with maneuvers - couldn't a pure put every one of those on just as a square is expected to wear a boatload of things?


There is no comparison. A square can get enough TD spells to be functionally immune to warding. In fact, in GS3, in the rift, squares had more TD than wizards or bards. That is the truth. They still do very well there in comparison.

There is no way to get enough 618 to make you immune to manuevers, 313 is not castable on others and is rare on scrolls and just provides an undocumented "Slight bonus" as does 1109, which isn't on scrolls. 911 provides phantom dodge ranks, and dodge isn't supposedly fully factored into manuevers.

The main skill to defend against SMRs is PF. Empaths rule that, as do warriors, sorcerers, clerics, and wizards, have the shaft there.




I'm not sure where you get this from. Squares end up spending so many points on physical skills that many (most?) have to convert a ton of mental training points to physical. Mental points are by no means cheap to squares. Also, for warriors specifically, the costs for magical skills are VERY high. In fact, I think the term utility skill should include AS and MIU, in which case squares and pures suddenly look a lot more balanced in their utility skill.


Mental points are cheap for them in the sense that physical points are cheap for pures. Although, my capped rogue, actually doesn't have any converted points his training is balanced enough, so rogues can be more like semis in that regard (not having to convert is a HUGE benefit). And as much as you want to think doing Arcane Symbols for warriors is really expensive, it compares not to CM or Dodge for pures.




As far as the weaknesses go.. squares are by no means immune to maneuvers. Squares can be weak to them too if they don't know the maneuver. Pures have 1 weakness - maneuvers. Squares are weak to spells AND maneuvers (though less so on the latter).


There are two types of manuevers, cmans and SMRs. If a square doesn't know the CMAN, he can be weak to it, he will be less weak than a pure, and there is a FAR FAR FAR greater possibility he DOES know the manuever. With SMRs, which primarily factor in PF, then CM, then PErception, squares have got it made vs pures. It isn't typically until postcap that most pures can really max out those skills.



But mana becomes a lot less of an issue later game. In fact, I doubt its even much of an issue earlier on! (I leveled a Sorc up to 25 in Shattered hunting with 702/705 with no issues frying.) Yes, pures lack the targeting ability, but make up for it with soft RT (cast, run away, cast as necessary), faster spell time, guarded stance always, and, for CS spells, no EBP. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the higher level pure spells kill outright a good percentage of the time with lores or overtraining in the circle. Further.. what set up is there to most spells? For a square to get his aimed shot, there's usually a maneuver first. That's at least 8-10 seconds of time if there is no EBP. How long does it take a pure to usually kill something?
[/quote]

Mana is a huge issue, afk script hunting takes all the boredom out of it, but if you were hunting it yourself you wouldn't have been able to handle it as well. It is also still an issue at cap, at post cap. It is always an issue until you can spend the god awfully massive amount of TPs to be fully tripled in HP, which is seriously, a god awful massive amount of TPs, even for pures. Way more than what warriors pay for PF.

As critters age it takes more to kill them. You might spend 4 casts of 702 to kill something young at 8 mana, but if you're killing a war griffin you'll spend, 44 mana.

Besides, no matter how high your mana pool, we're comparing it to infinity here. Infinity (the number of swings a square can do prior to needing to rest) will always be larger. If you wanted it balanced, let each swing take 1 stamina.

[JHarris]

There is no comparison. A square can get enough TD spells to be functionally immune to warding. In fact, in GS3, in the rift, squares had more TD than wizards or bards. That is the truth. They still do very well there in comparison.

There is no way to get enough 618 to make you immune to manuevers, 313 is not castable on others and is rare on scrolls and just provides an undocumented "Slight bonus" as does 1109, which isn't on scrolls. 911 provides phantom dodge ranks, and dodge isn't supposedly fully factored into manuevers.

The main skill to defend against SMRs is PF. Empaths rule that, as do warriors, sorcerers, clerics, and wizards, have the shaft there.


This isn't GS3, and squares do not do well, in comparison to pures or semis in the Rift. At least not the upper end rift. Since maneuver defense factors armor penalty in, not to mention stance penalty, squares often times are -worse- than pures in defense (hence all the whining squares did about crawler burrows when pures weren't getting hit by them nearly as much).

Also, no one can become functionally immune to cmans. That was my point. Squares -are- better against them, but as a square the majority of my deaths still come from getting some RT stacked from either a cman I don't know or an ewave and having a caster come in and nuke me while I can't move.



Mental points are cheap for them in the sense that physical points are cheap for pures. Although, my capped rogue, actually doesn't have any converted points his training is balanced enough, so rogues can be more like semis in that regard (not having to convert is a HUGE benefit). And as much as you want to think doing Arcane Symbols for warriors is really expensive, it compares not to CM or Dodge for pures.


Why is dodge even being mentioned here? It doesn't help with maneuver defenses at all, and pures get spells/lores to increase their DS much more cheaply. CMANs are expensive.. they are squares spells! If you want to whine about something being expensive, take a look at the cost for a warrior to learn a spell. Thats right.. 120 mtp. That's more than a level's worth of TPs.



There are two types of manuevers, cmans and SMRs. If a square doesn't know the CMAN, he can be weak to it, he will be less weak than a pure, and there is a FAR FAR FAR greater possibility he DOES know the manuever. With SMRs, which primarily factor in PF, then CM, then PErception, squares have got it made vs pures. It isn't typically until postcap that most pures can really max out those skills.


I've already addressed this point a bit above, but let me add something to it: pures have 2 big advantages to squares in CMANs - they are always in guarded at worst, which is a factor, AND they have soft RT/faster killing times. Pures dont have to set things up the same way squares do.. and they dont have to deal with EBP.

Here's an example: I walk into Nelemar and feint a radical (not an easy task in the first place since they are super trained in feint - could have failure right there. So maybe I use growl/bellow instead). I then ambush head.. but oh no! EBP'ed! Now I'm in 6 seconds of hard RT. Oh no! Radical charges me and open rolls a 135.. so despite the fact that I am trained in charge and and cunning defense, I take a big charge anyway. There is built in failure into the melee system where squares have to stand in offensive. And since redux doesn't apply to maneuvers for whatever dumb reason, a high roll charge screws me the same as a pure.

The difference here is that squares have to take more cmans than pures. Sure.. pures are worse at defending them, but should take fewer because of their soft RT and faster killing capacity, as well as crowd control. Since squares take more, they are bound to be hit by them pretty frequently too. And squares only know their class's maneuvers. Rogue maneuvers like sweep can be pretty ugly for a warrior.



Mana is a huge issue, afk script hunting takes all the boredom out of it, but if you were hunting it yourself you wouldn't have been able to handle it as well. It is also still an issue at cap, at post cap. It is always an issue until you can spend the god awfully massive amount of TPs to be fully tripled in HP, which is seriously, a god awful massive amount of TPs, even for pures. Way more than what warriors pay for PF.


So what you've admitted here is that, mechanically, pures dont have mana issues but you do out of boredom? If you could write rules to make a program manage mana better, you could follow them too.

Let's also not forget that, unless you are in Voln, wracking or sigil of power is a pretty great way to regen mana in the field.



Besides, no matter how high your mana pool, we're comparing it to infinity here. Infinity (the number of swings a square can do prior to needing to rest) will always be larger. If you wanted it balanced, let each swing take 1 stamina.

This doesn't stand under scrutiny. First off, a 3x PF warrior doesn't have 500 stamina. He has near 200. Maybe stamina regens more quickly, as I don't have experience with a post-cap pure with maxed mana control skills. Does it regenerate 2.5 or more times more quickly?

Also, have you seen the stamina cost on cmans? The are not cheap. Sure, feint is reasonably cheap, but berserk isnt. Surge of Strength isn't. Tackle isnt. Disarm isn't. Mighty Blow isn't. Sunder Shield isnt. Warriors can easily burn through stamina if they are maneuvering a decent amount, if they get stunned/webbed/whatever'd, if they are running surge of strength, etc. On top of that, no society has a stamina regen ability.

Also.. again, warriors kill more slowly than pures, and have less of an ability to handle crowds. They also have hard RT. I can't stress these points enough. The advantage is that, in theory, they can hunt longer. But its slower. And more dangerous due to being in offensive and having hard RT. Again, a caster can walk into a room, ewave, use whatever super spell they need and walk out. They never have the fear of ambushing something and having some big creature walk in while they are locked for 6 seconds, just praying the creature doesn't do something nasty to them.

Let me flip this on its head for you.. if you wanted balance, you'd give EBP to spells and hard RT time to casters. I don't really agree with this statement, but its akin to you thinking balance would come from making a swing take stamina. Basically, it ignores all the other facts of hunting that are involved.

[Celephais]

Emphasis on the last sentence.

518 · Cone of Lightning [CONELIGHT]
Duration: Immediate

Type: Attack

While Major Shock is quite powerful, it still is not a suitable defense against multiple opponents. Because of this, the Cone of Lightning spell was researched. It strikes as hard as a Major Shock, but the bolt arcs out in all directions and can hit many nearby targets.

Training in Elemental Lores, Air & Water, increases the damage done by this spell.

Did they change this? It used to not be the case...

[Fallen]

This isn't GS3, and squares do not do well, in comparison to pures or semis in the Rift. At least not the upper end rift. Since maneuver defense factors armor penalty in, not to mention stance penalty, squares often times are -worse- than pures in defense (hence all the whining squares did about crawler burrows when pures weren't getting hit by them nearly as much).

As I recall, a lot of those people werent anywhere near optimally built for the Rift when they were bitching. They weren't even maxed in PT in most cases, a few not even trained for their armor. As for armor penalty, as Warriors are able to 3x Armor Use, they are in the BEST position to lower their armor penalties to that of armors FAR below what they are actually wearing. Ignorance of the mechanics can make a class look shitty, but it isn't the fault of the class.


Also, no one can become functionally immune to cmans. That was my point. Squares -are- better against them, but as a square the majority of my deaths still come from getting some RT stacked from either a cman I don't know or an ewave and having a caster come in and nuke me while I can't move.

This happens with pures as well, and obviously a pure will be worse off due to thinner armor, fewer CM ranks, etc. The difference is we have the ability to disable more quickly/efficiently than squares..well, some squares. Hell, rogues now have Vanish to use in RT as well. No pure can boast that. Bottom line, RT stacking kills everyone.



Why is dodge even being mentioned here? It doesn't help with maneuver defenses at all, and pures get spells/lores to increase their DS much more cheaply. CMANs are expensive.. they are squares spells! If you want to whine about something being expensive, take a look at the cost for a warrior to learn a spell. Thats right.. 120 mtp. That's more than a level's worth of TPs.

Uh..Dodge is far cheaper for squares than lore is for a pure. Same with spells. I'll give you a little hint, CMANs are cheaper than spells too. The difference is you're capped in how many you can learn. I personally believe warriors should be able to 3x CM, though, for what that's worth. Any warrior learning spells instead of Arcane Symbols and MIU better be doing it for RP purposes, or is so far post cap it's the only thing left.



I've already addressed this point a bit above, but let me add something to it: pures have 2 big advantages to squares in CMANs - they are always in guarded at worst

See Channel mechanics. Sorcerers, Clerics, and Empaths all have to be in 3 seconds of hard RT, in offensive, or maximize the damage to some of their primary spells. Also, many creatures have the means to stance pures. Stuff like Call Wind, etc. My hunting partner D(a warrior, then a Paladin) in OTF wasn't even aware that Call Wind COULD stance you because of the advantage her training gave her.


which is a factor, AND they have soft RT/faster killing times. Pures dont have to set things up the same way squares do.. and they dont have to deal with EBP.

This I can grant you, we are faster due to soft RT. I think you're forgetting bolts can be evaded, though. Also, pures face hindrance/fumbles, where a swing will never fail to swing. I used to hunt at around 8% due to actually wanting to wear REAL armor (Brig).

To say a warrior is LESS prepared than a pure to survive a maneuver is just silly, however, as it has been stated by GMs that they are even better than empaths at defending against them. They are the best in the game against them when PROPERLY TRAINED.


Here's an example: I walk into Nelemar and feint a radical (not an easy task in the first place since they are super trained in feint - could have failure right there. So maybe I use growl/bellow instead). I then ambush head.. but oh no! EBP'ed! Now I'm in 6 seconds of hard RT. Oh no!

So you're telling me at near/like-level you cannot reliably lock up a creature for more than 6 seconds? NONE of the maneuvers at your disposal are able to do so? Feint is a 3 second maneuver, is it not? You're telling me you don't know when you've granted it enough RT to risk swinging, especially with a 6 second weapon?


Radical charges me and open rolls a 135.. so despite the fact that I am trained in charge and and cunning defense, I take a big charge anyway. There is built in failure into the melee system where squares have to stand in offensive.

That 135 for you would have been FAR higher for a pure. Hell, knowing charge, we'd probably by dead something warded you for THAT much WITH CDefense and Charge. As for standing, Wtrick stand? It's pretty damn rare to see that fail.


And since redux doesn't apply to maneuvers for whatever dumb reason, a high roll charge screws me the same as a pure.

Other than, you know, your armor, which is taken into account, your skill training, which is taken into account, and, as a warrior, the ability to add PUNCTURE resistance to your armor, greatly reducing the damage. Stack it with padding for extra goodness! I know I did.


The difference here is that squares have to take more cmans than pures. Sure.. pures are worse at defending them, but should take fewer because of their soft RT and faster killing capacity, as well as crowd control. Since squares take more, they are bound to be hit by them pretty frequently too. And squares only know their class's maneuvers. Rogue maneuvers like sweep can be pretty ugly for a warrior.

You've already named some of your advantages. You can actually train in Charge to lessen your risk against it. Same with that SUPER feint you're facing from the Radicals. A pure can master at MOST 1 offensive maneuver, and come part way in another.


So what you've admitted here is that, mechanically, pures dont have mana issues but you do out of boredom? If you could write rules to make a program manage mana better, you could follow them too. Let's also not forget that, unless you are in Voln, wracking or sigil of power is a pretty great way to regen mana in the field.

Mana for casting versus unlimiting swinging is another argument. Someone could write you a program to better doll out RT to critters (and manage the stamina costs!), and you could follow it.


This doesn't stand under scrutiny. First off, a 3x PF warrior doesn't have 500 stamina. He has near 200. Maybe stamina regens more quickly, as I don't have experience with a post-cap pure with maxed mana control skills. Does it regenerate 2.5 or more times more quickly?

Mana generate more quickly than Stamina? Maybe due to a large pool size. Mana pulses every 2 minutes, stamina every 30 seconds, I believe. If you're having stamina issues, consider enhancives. They can easily stretch your stamina supply.


Also, have you seen the stamina cost on cmans? The are not cheap. Sure, feint is reasonably cheap, but berserk isnt. Surge of Strength isn't. Tackle isnt. Disarm isn't. Mighty Blow isn't. Sunder Shield isnt. Warriors can easily burn through stamina if they are maneuvering a decent amount, if they get stunned/webbed/whatever'd, if they are running surge of strength, etc. On top of that, no society has a stamina regen ability.

Unless you're an Empath, as a pure, you simply cannot keep a sustainable amount of mana using GoS alone. COL's mana production also has its balances, as you should be well aware. Voln's is a laugh. I hope you know that.

And honestly, bitching about the cost of getting out of a stun/web/whatever to a pure isn't really a good argument. Berserk is WELL worth the cost if you know what you're doing.


Also.. again, warriors kill more slowly than pures, and have less of an ability to handle crowds. They also have hard RT. I can't stress these points enough. The advantage is that, in theory, they can hunt longer.

Warriors can kill more reliably than pures, and be better protected when doing so. There is no theory about it. A pure will run out of mana. A square will not run out of sword-swinging.


But its slower.
Agreed. Squares than don't ambush from hiding with a smaller weapon, or use thrown (you need toys, but D popped eyes all day long with her bando) or archery WILL be slower. Don't worry, they are nerfing Warwizards to make you feel better about that slowness, though.


And more dangerous due to being in offensive and having hard RT.

See above.



Again, a caster can walk into a room, ewave, use whatever super spell they need and walk out.

Yes. They do this because if one of those creatures gets off a shot, they're FAR more likely to be dead. That's the trade off. Can't take a hit, but can sure give one out.


They never have the fear of ambushing something and having some big creature walk in while they are locked for 6 seconds, just praying the creature doesn't do something nasty to them.

No, we do our praying the same time you do, when we're sitting in RT from some maneuver, be it critter born or CMAN. Sounds like that 6 seconds really bothers you. Have you considered changing builds if this 6 second ambush isn't working?


Let me flip this on its head for you.. if you wanted balance, you'd give EBP to spells and hard RT time to casters. I don't really agree with this statement, but its akin to you thinking balance would come from making a swing take stamina. Basically, it ignores all the other facts of hunting that are involved.

As I mentioned, Hindrance is a feature of casting, as is fumbling. Not nearly as much, and hindrance is a choice, if you want non-pathetic armor.

What *I* would do for swingers is a rather simple fix. I would take the RT squares get from attacking, and make it into a combination of hard and soft RT. A square would still get 6 seconds of RT from swinging, but only the first 3 seconds of that would be hard RT. The next 3 seconds would be soft RT, akin to a pure (but perhaps not exactly the same). You would be able to do many actions, including stancing down, but depending on the circumstances, not moving without the aid of a maneuver and/or cost.

This would dramatically boost the FEEL of combat for swingers, if not the speed. Nobody likes hard RT.

[crb]

This isn't GS3, and squares do not do well, in comparison to pures or semis in the Rift. At least not the upper end rift. Since maneuver defense factors armor penalty in, not to mention stance penalty, squares often times are -worse- than pures in defense (hence all the whining squares did about crawler burrows when pures weren't getting hit by them nearly as much).

Also, no one can become functionally immune to cmans. That was my point. Squares -are- better against them, but as a square the majority of my deaths still come from getting some RT stacked from either a cman I don't know or an ewave and having a caster come in and nuke me while I can't move.


I said functionally immune to warding spells.

A square can very easily accomplish that. Plate armor is like a +50 TD item when you account for CvA. I'd give you the exact numbers but the game is down now and I'm not sure they're on Krakii. 401, 406, 414, 101, 107. All very easily gotten.



Why is dodge even being mentioned here? It doesn't help with maneuver defenses at all, and pures get spells/lores to increase their DS much more cheaply. CMANs are expensive.. they are squares spells! If you want to whine about something being expensive, take a look at the cost for a warrior to learn a spell. Thats right.. 120 mtp. That's more than a level's worth of TPs.

Um, if you're only getting 120 mtp a level you're doing it wrong, very wrong. I question all your knowledge on game mechanics if you claim this. And a square doesn't need to know spells because spells aren't self cast only. All they need is to have them cast on them with magical items, scrolls, or other characters. MIU and AS are cheap.

And don't consider dodge if you don't want to, just consider PF and CM.




I've already addressed this point a bit above, but let me add something to it: pures have 2 big advantages to squares in CMANs - they are always in guarded at worst, which is a factor, AND they have soft RT/faster killing times. Pures dont have to set things up the same way squares do.. and they dont have to deal with EBP.


Incorrect.

At higher points of the game most areas have ways to stance up pures, and it sucks. For a freshly capped pure, self cast, if they get call winded, in say OTF, they die. That is how dangerous offensive stance is. Also, our spells, at least for some of us, suck if not open hand channeled with hard RT.



Here's an example: I walk into Nelemar and feint a radical (not an easy task in the first place since they are super trained in feint - could have failure right there. So maybe I use growl/bellow instead). I then ambush head.. but oh no! EBP'ed! Now I'm in 6 seconds of hard RT. Oh no! Radical charges me and open rolls a 135.. so despite the fact that I am trained in charge and and cunning defense, I take a big charge anyway. There is built in failure into the melee system where squares have to stand in offensive. And since redux doesn't apply to maneuvers for whatever dumb reason, a high roll charge screws me the same as a pure.

I'll match your EBP and raise you fumbles and armor hinderance.






This doesn't stand under scrutiny. First off, a 3x PF warrior doesn't have 500 stamina. He has near 200. Maybe stamina regens more quickly, as I don't have experience with a post-cap pure with maxed mana control skills. Does it regenerate 2.5 or more times more quickly?

Stamina and mana aren't the same system. That you want to compare total possible maxes is retarded. Would you trade $1000 USD for $1000 Zimbabwe dollars?




Also.. again, warriors kill more slowly than pures, and have less of an ability to handle crowds. They also have hard RT. I can't stress these points enough. The advantage is that, in theory, they can hunt longer. But its slower. And more dangerous due to being in offensive and having hard RT. Again, a caster can walk into a room, ewave, use whatever super spell they need and walk out. They never have the fear of ambushing something and having some big creature walk in while they are locked for 6 seconds, just praying the creature doesn't do something nasty to them.


Mstrike is pretty fucking awesome. Wizards are really the only pure with an attack like that. But all the shit you mentioned is the drawback of not having to rely on mana, and having it far easier to advance when young, and having cheaper training costs.



Let me flip this on its head for you.. if you wanted balance, you'd give EBP to spells and hard RT time to casters. I don't really agree with this statement, but its akin to you thinking balance would come from making a swing take stamina. Basically, it ignores all the other facts of hunting that are involved.

And we'd give hinderance and fumbles to squares, making, say, 8% of all attacks fail before they get out of the gate, but still costing you stamina for each one.

Oh, and guess what critters do with bolts? EBP. You think that doesn't happen?

So when casting a bolt spell I gotta deal with fumbles, hinderance, EBP, and then the need to hit the target... with an attack I cannot just aim at the eyeball and oneshot always.

[AnticorRifling]

Do you mean the time between leveling whole rooms or the average time you spend in cast RT per critter?



Notes:
- 6 mana per kill
- Looks like I was level 46 at the time
- 50 irrelevant ranks of fire lore (no air or water)
- A hasted warmage could have done the same in 6 seconds of hard RT at best (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1171731)

A room like that I'd probably open with 435, then start swinging. Probably take me 10 seconds total including the 435 knockdown to clear that room. Or...I could just cone like you did since I've got the same spells. Any good warmage isn't going to forget that he can still bolt if the situation presents itself.

[JHarris]

you have some good points, however, I think the tone of my post was slightly misinterpreted. I do not have big issues with the balance on squares. I was mainly trying to point out that they have their downsides, too.

My biggest issue with squares is that they are very limited in post-cap development, and I think 3x cmans would be an awesome way to fix that. That and I think dodge should be part of the calculation for maneuver defense. Otherwise, my points were designed to show how squares have weaknesses and flaws just as pures do - they were not designed to whine that squares are way underpowered.


. Ignorance of the mechanics can make a class look shitty, but it isn't the fault of the class.


Yep. That's fair. With 3x PF and overtrained MBP, I dodge crawlers as well as anyone when in defensive. I still contend that a warrior is more likely to have a burrow attempted on them due to a number of factors, and is more likely to be in offensive when it happens. Consequently, I think it is very likely that warriors get hit by them just as, if not more, frequently.



This happens with pures as well, and obviously a pure will be worse off due to thinner armor, fewer CM ranks, etc. The difference is we have the ability to disable more quickly/efficiently than squares..well, some squares. Hell, rogues now have Vanish to use in RT as well. No pure can boast that. Bottom line, RT stacking kills everyone.


This was my point - CRB was stating that warriors can become functionally immune to warding, and I was pointing out that they are still weak to maneuvers like everyone. I felt he was implicitly assuming that warriors had no weakness once warding got taken care of.



Uh..Dodge is far cheaper for squares than lore is for a pure. Same with spells. I'll give you a little hint, CMANs are cheaper than spells too. The difference is you're capped in how many you can learn. I personally believe warriors should be able to 3x CM, though, for what that's worth. Any warrior learning spells instead of Arcane Symbols and MIU better be doing it for RP purposes, or is so far post cap it's the only thing left.


Cmans are cheaper, but have less of an effect. Dodge is cheaper, but is less effective since it can be removed via a number of mechanics. Yep.. spells can be dispelled. And yes, making spells add more DS than the original form is expensive.. but lores/added spell research usually adds more benefits than just the DS to one spell.



See Channel mechanics. Sorcerers, Clerics, and Empaths all have to be in 3 seconds of hard RT, in offensive, or maximize the damage to some of their primary spells. Also, many creatures have the means to stance pures. Stuff like Call Wind, etc. My hunting partner D(a warrior, then a Paladin) in OTF wasn't even aware that Call Wind COULD stance you because of the advantage her training gave her.


I was not taking channel into account. Fair enough. They still have the option to be in soft and guarded, should the situation demand it. Flexibility is nice.

And like Debia, I did not know Call wind could stance you. That's a good point.



To say a warrior is LESS prepared than a pure to survive a maneuver is just silly, however, as it has been stated by GMs that they are even better than empaths at defending against them. They are the best in the game against them when PROPERLY TRAINED.


I also didn't say I think squares are less prepared to survive a maneuver. I think that squares are more often in a position to get hit by them.



So you're telling me at near/like-level you cannot reliably lock up a creature for more than 6 seconds? NONE of the maneuvers at your disposal are able to do so? Feint is a 3 second maneuver, is it not? You're telling me you don't know when you've granted it enough RT to risk swinging, especially with a 6 second weapon?


Not saying that at all. I was merely trying to point out the inherent danger of having to set up things for multiple seconds versus walking in and blasting away. I was trying to reiterate that warriors are not immune to cmans and are in position more frequently to get hit by them. I did not ever mean to suggest that we are more likely to be hit by any given one, just more likely to have any given one attempted.



You've already named some of your advantages. You can actually train in Charge to lessen your risk against it. Same with that SUPER feint you're facing from the Radicals. A pure can master at MOST 1 offensive maneuver, and come part way in another.


I'm not worried about radicals feinting me. My point is that radicals defend really well against feint, and thus it can't be used consistently on them. Also, in the same way that a square can get spells, a pure can get puncture resistance. (Well, in a similar way. I know puncture resistance doesn't show up on scrolls, but it does last a long time.. longer on a pure since they get hit less frequently)



Mana for casting versus unlimiting swinging is another argument. Someone could write you a program to better doll out RT to critters (and manage the stamina costs!), and you could follow it.


Sure. But as it stands right now, the game is not balanced for that. Adding an stamina cost to swinging would severely hurt squares who use maneuvers a lot to begin with. I think this is another argument entirely, though, and is completely speculative based on what would need to be changed.



Mana generate more quickly than Stamina? Maybe due to a large pool size. Mana pulses every 2 minutes, stamina every 30 seconds, I believe. If you're having stamina issues, consider enhancives. They can easily stretch your stamina supply.


Actually, I said that Stamina probably out regens mana, though probably not by a factor of 2.5.



Unless you're an Empath, as a pure, you simply cannot keep a sustainable amount of mana using GoS alone. COL's mana production also has its balances, as you should be well aware. Voln's is a laugh. I hope you know that.


Of course Voln is a laugh. That's why I mentioned Sigil of Power and wracking, and not dreams.



And honestly, bitching about the cost of getting out of a stun/web/whatever to a pure isn't really a good argument. Berserk is WELL worth the cost if you know what you're doing.


Absolutely wasn't bitching here. I was just making the point that a square uses his stamina frequently, and, hunting solo, often times depletes it completely. To act like a square has no issues in hunting forever is ignoring this fact, and that was my point. But.. just as a good pure can balance his mana use, a good square can balance his stamina use. I completely agree that berserk is well worth its cost.



Warriors can kill more reliably than pures, and be better protected when doing so. There is no theory about it. A pure will run out of mana. A square will not run out of sword-swinging.


I disagree here. Squares not necessarily better protected. Between mass disabling and a much higher DS/TD, I think pures are actually better protected. If the square takes a hit, he is certainly better off. If a maneuver gets through, the square is better. I see that as balanced.

A square can run out of stamina. A square without stamina in any high level hunting ground is going to have issues. I don't know about you, but I don't really want to sit around and wait for something to stance themselves before I attack.



Agreed. Squares than don't ambush from hiding with a smaller weapon, or use thrown (you need toys, but D popped eyes all day long with her bando) or archery WILL be slower. Don't worry, they are nerfing Warwizards to make you feel better about that slowness, though.


I hope this was meant tongue-in-cheek. The potential warmage nerf is the most laughable fix I've heard of in GS in a while. Then again, that is why I dont get the loots anymore in Nelemar.. all the... warmages stealing it. Pfft.



Yes. They do this because if one of those creatures gets off a shot, they're FAR more likely to be dead. That's the trade off. Can't take a hit, but can sure give one out.


Again, that's my point! Its a trade off. My responses, in general, were to CRB's statement that squares are better off.



No, we do our praying the same time you do, when we're sitting in RT from some maneuver, be it critter born or CMAN. Sounds like that 6 seconds really bothers you. Have you considered changing builds if this 6 second ambush isn't working?


Nope. No issue here. I'm again pointing out the danger that a square faces that a pure does not. Squares also have the prayer factor going when sitting in RT from some maneuver, they just have the bonus one of their hard swing RT.

I think my overall point to this is that, while pures face certain dangers, squares face others. While pures have certain advantages, squares have others. I felt that a lot of CRB's comments were designed to show a flat imbalance, and I was often pointing out how those were not imbalances due to other concerns. There are tradeoffs.



What *I* would do for swingers is a rather simple fix. I would take the RT squares get from attacking, and make it into a combination of hard and soft RT. A square would still get 6 seconds of RT from swinging, but only the first 3 seconds of that would be hard RT. The next 3 seconds would be soft RT, akin to a pure (but perhaps not exactly the same). You would be able to do many actions, including stancing down, but depending on the circumstances, not moving without the aid of a maneuver and/or cost.

This would dramatically boost the FEEL of combat for swingers, if not the speed. Nobody likes hard RT.


Agreed. This is a great recommendation.

[JHarris]

I said functionally immune to warding spells.

A square can very easily accomplish that. Plate armor is like a +50 TD item when you account for CvA. I'd give you the exact numbers but the game is down now and I'm not sure they're on Krakii. 401, 406, 414, 101, 107. All very easily gotten.


And yet, with 401, 406, 414, 101, 107, even 120, combat focus, a perfect wisdom stat, and MBP (yes that is 3 less CvA than Full plate. Really not the issue). I can still be warded in Nelemar.



Um, if you're only getting 120 mtp a level you're doing it wrong, very wrong. I question all your knowledge on game mechanics if you claim this. And a square doesn't need to know spells because spells aren't self cast only. All they need is to have them cast on them with magical items, scrolls, or other characters. MIU and AS are cheap.


However, self-cast spells are usually a lot better as they last longer, add more bonuses and are free. Maybe I don't know my mechanics of lower levels having sat at cap for a while - I get, just as anyone, 1 ptp and 1 mtp, per 2500 exp at cap. So in 100k exp, I get 40/40, in 150k exp 60/60. So 150k doesn't buy me a spell. 200k does. Maybe that is a bad approximation of a level.



Incorrect.

At higher points of the game most areas have ways to stance up pures, and it sucks. For a freshly capped pure, self cast, if they get call winded, in say OTF, they die. That is how dangerous offensive stance is. Also, our spells, at least for some of us, suck if not open hand channeled with hard RT.


Yeah, Fallen pointed the call wind out. I was unaware - I've been hunting Nelemar for the last 2 years, and rarely get over to OTF.



Stamina and mana aren't the same system. That you want to compare total possible maxes is retarded. Would you trade $1000 USD for $1000 Zimbabwe dollars?


I feel like this was my exact point. They are not the same system. I was, in fact, comparing them to show you they are not the same system. My point about cmans being relatively expensive was, again, to show they are not the same system. I was pointing these things out since you wanted each of our attacks to drain our stamina, similar to how each of your spells drains your mana, thereby suggesting they should be more like each other.

The purpose of comparing max mana to max stamina is absolutely to show that the burden of stamina in a hunt for a warrior is already high because there is not as much of it, and thus warriors are limited in their hunting by their stamina to some extent. That comparison is not retarded. Yes, they can swing forever, but a warrior without maneuvers is pretty crappy.

You also posted this: "It is always an issue until you can spend the god awfully massive amount of TPs to be fully tripled in HP, which is seriously, a god awful massive amount of TPs, even for pures. Way more than what warriors pay for PF." earlier. You brought the comparison of the two system together, so if anyone should be asked the US Dollar for Zimbabwe question, it should be you.



Mstrike is pretty fucking awesome. Wizards are really the only pure with an attack like that. But all the shit you mentioned is the drawback of not having to rely on mana, and having it far easier to advance when young, and having cheaper training costs.


Mstrike is pretty awesome, but still comes with a huge pricetag in hard RT. It doesn't stance or prone anything, either, unlike some mass effect spells. This is not a complaint. My point, over and over, is that squares have their own big drawbacks, too. Your initial post acted as if squares are unbalanced compared to pures, and I've just been pointing out how both have advantages and drawbacks.



Oh, and guess what critters do with bolts? EBP. You think that doesn't happen?


Of course I do. Since I know you play a sorcerer, I was (perhaps inappropriately) focusing more on responding to CS spells.



So when casting a bolt spell I gotta deal with fumbles, hinderance, EBP, and then the need to hit the target... with an attack I cannot just aim at the eyeball and oneshot always.

Ah, you should know there is never an always involved.

[Drew]

You're arguing with CRB who has the biggest persecution/grass is greener complex of anyone in the game who hasn't quit. I don't know why he doesn't quit. I've never seen him ever say he enjoys the game but he whines constantly. ALL THE DAMN TIME. If I was as unhappy as him about things I would have stopped paying real money for it a long time ago.

On top of that he has never lost an argument because he won't ever stop arguing. Feel free to continue but you'll note that everyone who has a modicum of posts isn't responding to him because we know better.

[crb]

And yet, with 401, 406, 414, 101, 107, even 120, combat focus, a perfect wisdom stat, and MBP (yes that is 3 less CvA than Full plate. Really not the issue). I can still be warded in Nelemar.


I don't know of any pure who is immune to warding spells when self cast either. Get that easy shit, then get 1 harder to find warding spell. 913, 712, 613, 508, or 219. Scrolls are fairly easy to find with those. This is what most pures have to do, and semis. I can get nailed by Ithzir seers if I don't have 613.



Maybe I don't know my mechanics of lower levels having sat at cap for a while - I get, just as anyone, 1 ptp and 1 mtp, per 2500 exp at cap. So in 100k exp, I get 40/40, in 150k exp 60/60. So 150k doesn't buy me a spell. 200k does. Maybe that is a bad approximation of a level.


It sounds like you just don't know game mechanics. The baseline max for people is 60/60 per level, modified by stats of course, in reality you're looking at low to mid 50s for most on average by higher levels. When you level up, if you've converted most points previously (which warriors & pures do in almost all cases) you'll get points back. For a warrior, the 60 pts gained with a level will unconvert 120 mtps. Add in the 60 mtps gained (yes, I know I'm going with the max, for the sake of clean numbers), and you have 180 mtps.

Furthermore, when leveling up you gain credits back for skills you had double or triple trained in that are now considered less so based on your new higher level base. These freed up training points often add another 60 mtps.

Meaning, a pure level 50+ is probably actually going to have 200-240 PTPs to use when they level (if they didn't spend any inter-level training points) and a square will get the same in MTPs.

Almost twice your claim of 120.



Maybe I don't know my mechanics of lower levels having sat at cap for a while

I've been capped since GS4 existed, I haven't forgotten these basic game mechanic things. Maybe more ginseng?




Yeah, Fallen pointed the call wind out. I was unaware - I've been hunting Nelemar for the last 2 years, and rarely get over to OTF.


Your knowledge of game mechanics astounds me. Didn't know call wind stanced people up. Did you know ambush has a stance pushdown? How about that encumberance affects manuever dodging? Did you actually hunt your character from 0 to cap or buy him?



The purpose of comparing max mana to max stamina is absolutely to show that the burden of stamina in a hunt for a warrior is already high because there is not as much of it, and thus warriors are limited in their hunting by their stamina to some extent. That comparison is not retarded. Yes, they can swing forever, but a warrior without maneuvers is pretty crappy.

You don't get it. What will buy more, $1000 USD or 1 million Zimbabwe Dollars? What you're saying is "Well, the number system used for mana has a higher base, therefor mana will last longer, because it has a bigger number, because a bigger number is always better than a smaller number and it is not at all worth calculating things like costs and rate of use. Likewise, if a paladin can swing his sword at near 700, he obviously has a much stronger offense than a sorcerer who casts spells at a CS of 500. Because 700 is bigger than 500. "

Lets try this J K Harris and company, I will give you 100 quarters, or 1000 pennies, which would you rather have? Don't forget, 1000 is a bigger number than 100.



You also posted this: "It is always an issue until you can spend the god awfully massive amount of TPs to be fully tripled in HP, which is seriously, a god awful massive amount of TPs, even for pures. Way more than what warriors pay for PF." earlier. You brought the comparison of the two system together, so if anyone should be asked the US Dollar for Zimbabwe question, it should be you.


http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg

Just because I used the two words in the same sentence does not give you willy nilly license to claim they are the same in your logic devoid arguments.

The point I made is that it is far cheaper for a warrior to maximize their PF, than it is for a pure to maximize their AS. By maximum I mean 100%, which is a relative representation of a number, not a literal number. I trust you understand the difference. When you're running from a bear you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the people you're with. Success in gemstone is relative because hunting challenges are designed vs. the average, the further you can get beyond the average the greater success you will have. If you're at the 100% level for something, you're the paragon of that skill and above the average, therefor you should have great success. The point I was making was that it is far cheaper for a warrior to reach the pinnacle of their skill, than a pure.

[AnticorRifling]

I thought call wind stanced people DOWN not UP... Holy shit Call Wind is a A/C I'm out of here !!!!!!!

[crb]

You're arguing with CRB who has the biggest persecution/grass is greener complex of anyone in the game who hasn't quit. I don't know why he doesn't quit. I've never seen him ever say he enjoys the game but he whines constantly. ALL THE DAMN TIME. If I was as unhappy as him about things I would have stopped paying real money for it a long time ago.

On top of that he has never lost an argument because he won't ever stop arguing. Feel free to continue but you'll note that everyone who has a modicum of posts isn't responding to him because we know better.

:violin:

Did I make you a sad panda drew?

[Stunseed]

Lack of denial is pretty funny here.

This is where someone makes a petition joke and the world is re-balanced.

[Fallen]

One thing I will readily admit, squares are NOT OP. Rogues are capable of strong, strong builds, but I wouldn't even say they are close to OP. Pures and Semis are more than capable of becoming completely overpowered *WHEN* comparing them to Squares.

[JHarris]

It sounds like you just don't know game mechanics. The baseline max for people is 60/60 per level, modified by stats of course, in reality you're looking at low to mid 50s for most on average by higher levels. When you level up, if you've converted most points previously (which warriors & pures do in almost all cases) you'll get points back. For a warrior, the 60 pts gained with a level will unconvert 120 mtps. Add in the 60 mtps gained (yes, I know I'm going with the max, for the sake of clean numbers), and you have 180 mtps.

Furthermore, when leveling up you gain credits back for skills you had double or triple trained in that are now considered less so based on your new higher level base. These freed up training points often add another 60 mtps.

Meaning, a pure level 50+ is probably actually going to have 200-240 PTPs to use when they level (if they didn't spend any inter-level training points) and a square will get the same in MTPs.

Almost twice your claim of 120.


Regardless of what you earn back due to double or triple training something, each level still only gives 60/60. You don't get magic bonus TPs. Your decision to double or triple train something and then get the points back is just spending TPs in advance, in a way. 120 mtps is still 120 mtps. You simply don't get more.



I've been capped since GS4 existed, I haven't forgotten these basic game mechanic things. Maybe more ginseng?


And begins the ad hominems. I was being polite when I said this. You actually were referring to gaining more by fact of unconverting, not because people actually gain more than that. In the end, 1 mental training point is 1 mental training point. You don't get extra for overspending earlier. Whether you pick up 3 spells at level 0 and no others for 2 levels, or you get 1 each level, you have the same raw TP total at level 2. So if I spent 120 mtps to get a spell, that is more than an entire level's worth of TPs that I could have spent on other things.



Your knowledge of game mechanics astounds me. Didn't know call wind stanced people up. Did you know ambush has a stance pushdown? How about that encumberance affects manuever dodging? Did you actually hunt your character from 0 to cap or buy him?


Because I didnt know the effects of one spell that doesn't affect me? Let's try to keep your arguments based on what I've said. I admitted my lack of knowledge on that point. Argue against my points.. don't create straw men. And for the record, I've hunted a warrior from 0-60, 0-82, 54-91 and the current one I am playing I bought at 100. Does this make my logic any more or less sound? My points should stand on their own regardless of my hunting experience. But since you think it is important, my experience is certainly much greater than yours when it comes to a warrior.



You don't get it. What will buy more, $1000 USD or 1 million Zimbabwe Dollars? What you're saying is "Well, the number system used for mana has a higher base, therefor mana will last longer, because it has a bigger number, because a bigger number is always better than a smaller number and it is not at all worth calculating things like costs and rate of use. Likewise, if a paladin can swing his sword at near 700, he obviously has a much stronger offense than a sorcerer who casts spells at a CS of 500. Because 700 is bigger than 500. "

Lets try this J K Harris and company, I will give you 100 quarters, or 1000 pennies, which would you rather have? Don't forget, 1000 is a bigger number than 100.


Didn't say this at all. You pointed out its more expensive to max mana. I pointed out that you get less stamina for maxing it, and that stamina runs out very quickly due to the high cost of maneuvers. Now let's follow the logic train in this comparison:

More mana + similar or less cost per spell versus less stamina + higher/same cost per maneuver. Squares regen stamina faster than pures regen mana (maybe), but there are also societal mechanics that help with mana regen. Further, both need there things, respectively, to hunt. Perhaps squares need them a little less, but they have less stamina.

Seems like a good comparison, since I am actually taking into account the differences in the systems. Is it a perfect comparison? Nope. But for you to think it is a 100 quarters versus a 100 pennies issue shows you misinterpreted what I said.



Just because I used the two words in the same sentence does not give you willy nilly license to claim they are the same in your logic devoid arguments.


You directly compared how mana is more expensive than stamina. That absolutely allows me to then compare them further to show how that might not be an imbalance. I didn't say they were the same. Get that out of your head. I can still compare them without saying they are the same.



The point I made is that it is far cheaper for a warrior to maximize their PF, than it is for a pure to maximize their AS. By maximum I mean 100%, which is a relative representation of a number, not a literal number. I trust you understand the difference. When you're running from a bear you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the people you're with. Success in gemstone is relative because hunting challenges are designed vs. the average, the further you can get beyond the average the greater success you will have. If you're at the 100% level for something, you're the paragon of that skill and above the average, therefor you should have great success. The point I was making was that it is far cheaper for a warrior to reach the pinnacle of their skill, than a pure.

Just because someone can achieve the pinnacle of their skill faster doesn't mean they are even skills! In many cases, it should not be that everyone maxes their skills at the same speed. It takes a hell of a lot longer to master medicine than it does to mastering being a salesperson at the Gap. Kinda makes sense that it does, though. If you want to argue whether or not the extra ranks of HP are less valuable than the extra ranks of PF, that would actually be a fair argument.

Honestly, though, if you can't be civil in a discussion, I'm done. I tried to respond politely to your points, and you've turned rude. I didn't know about the call wind mechanic.. oh noez! I bet I could find some cman mechanic that you don't know that well. If I did, would that disqualify all your other points? And on the MTP side of things, it turns out we were viewing it from different angles.

Let's focus on one point here:

Pures and squares have different strengths and weaknesses:

TD spells: Squares are pretty weak here, but can take steps to be nearly functionally immune. Pures start out almost immune, and it is easier for them to become functionally immune.

Maneuvers: Squares are a lot better at defending them once they happen. Pures will not have as many happen to them by virtue of speed/mass disable/soft RT. If they happen to a pure, they don't defend well, though they can take steps to fix it. No, they won't be functionally immune, but neither are Squares. Yes, squares will always defend better against them than pures, but they also will have many more attempted on them. In the long run, squares get hit by a lot of maneuvers.

[Lumi]

Without a shadow of a doubt, Pure Bard is the easiest, highest xp/hr, fastest killing, lowest risk character I have. Between 2 and 34 mana the mob is dead, no matter what. The CS to TD Ratio is always insanely high. She could easily hunt +10 levels. She had a mana issue at level 30 when we flipped, but it slowly went away.
Keep in mind this means the mob is almost always dead between 3 and 9 seconds.
We had MAD points to train, she doubles in PF and dodge. Uses a shield but almost doesn't need it. After we didn't need the instrument anymore, the DS went up another 50 or so points because of having 1x brawling. This is a strong and fast build.
.
.
.
Over all... Pure bard never gets hit with DS attacks. Her TD is high enough to never get hit there. And her 2x PF and dodge means she never has an issue with Maneuvers. This build is Broken guys.

Okay, I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I have to ask...how the fuck are you training a pure bard with 2x PF and Dodge since level 30?

2x Dodging: 18/18
2x PF: 12/0
1.5x spells: 0/34

That's 30/52 already, without any armor, shield, brawling, lore, Harness...

It's not enough magic ranks for runestaff use, not by a longshot.

What's the rest of the build look like?

[crb]

Regardless of what you earn back due to double or triple training something, each level still only gives 60/60. You don't get magic bonus TPs. Your decision to double or triple train something and then get the points back is just spending TPs in advance, in a way. 120 mtps is still 120 mtps. You simply don't get more.



And begins the ad hominems. I was being polite when I said this. You actually were referring to gaining more by fact of unconverting, not because people actually gain more than that. In the end, 1 mental training point is 1 mental training point. You don't get extra for overspending earlier. Whether you pick up 3 spells at level 0 and no others for 2 levels, or you get 1 each level, you have the same raw TP total at level 2. So if I spent 120 mtps to get a spell, that is more than an entire level's worth of TPs that I could have spent on other things.



Because I didnt know the effects of one spell that doesn't affect me? Let's try to keep your arguments based on what I've said. I admitted my lack of knowledge on that point. Argue against my points.. don't create straw men. And for the record, I've hunted a warrior from 0-60, 0-82, 54-91 and the current one I am playing I bought at 100. Does this make my logic any more or less sound? My points should stand on their own regardless of my hunting experience. But since you think it is important, my experience is certainly much greater than yours when it comes to a warrior.



Didn't say this at all. You pointed out its more expensive to max mana. I pointed out that you get less stamina for maxing it, and that stamina runs out very quickly due to the high cost of maneuvers. Now let's follow the logic train in this comparison:

More mana + similar or less cost per spell versus less stamina + higher/same cost per maneuver. Squares regen stamina faster than pures regen mana (maybe), but there are also societal mechanics that help with mana regen. Further, both need there things, respectively, to hunt. Perhaps squares need them a little less, but they have less stamina.

Seems like a good comparison, since I am actually taking into account the differences in the systems. Is it a perfect comparison? Nope. But for you to think it is a 100 quarters versus a 100 pennies issue shows you misinterpreted what I said.



You directly compared how mana is more expensive than stamina. That absolutely allows me to then compare them further to show how that might not be an imbalance. I didn't say they were the same. Get that out of your head. I can still compare them without saying they are the same.



Just because someone can achieve the pinnacle of their skill faster doesn't mean they are even skills! In many cases, it should not be that everyone maxes their skills at the same speed. It takes a hell of a lot longer to master medicine than it does to mastering being a salesperson at the Gap. Kinda makes sense that it does, though. If you want to argue whether or not the extra ranks of HP are less valuable than the extra ranks of PF, that would actually be a fair argument.

Honestly, though, if you can't be civil in a discussion, I'm done. I tried to respond politely to your points, and you've turned rude. I didn't know about the call wind mechanic.. oh noez! I bet I could find some cman mechanic that you don't know that well. If I did, would that disqualify all your other points? And on the MTP side of things, it turns out we were viewing it from different angles.

Let's focus on one point here:

Pures and squares have different strengths and weaknesses:

TD spells: Squares are pretty weak here, but can take steps to be nearly functionally immune. Pures start out almost immune, and it is easier for them to become functionally immune.

Maneuvers: Squares are a lot better at defending them once they happen. Pures will not have as many happen to them by virtue of speed/mass disable/soft RT. If they happen to a pure, they don't defend well, though they can take steps to fix it. No, they won't be functionally immune, but neither are Squares. Yes, squares will always defend better against them than pures, but they also will have many more attempted on them. In the long run, squares get hit by a lot of maneuvers.

60mtp +60ptp != 120 mtp

http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/facepalm2.jpg

I don't even know why I bother. It is one thing if I want to get into an argument with like Gib or someone who atleast is arguing from a position of knowledge, however misguided he may be. But if I wanted to correct math all day I would be a teacher.

You didn't start this thread, I didn't start this thread, someone else did and decided pures were overpowered, I corrected them. You took my correction of them to be an attack on squares, whatever.

I think the game, pures vs squares, is pretty balanced right now. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses. I just take exception when people decide that pures need more restrictions, because, fuck them, try being a sorcerer. We used to be known for power, now we're known for restrictions, componentry, and training costs.

In general though, squares vs pures are balanced. Semis, however, aren't, they need nerfs, especially purebards. The best CS hunters should NOT be semis. When the ability of empaths to destroy the PF skill was decided in 1990, they probably didn't know that in 2004 PF would become a primary manuever dodging skill. That probably needs to be looked at in the realm of pure vs. pure balance. Sorcerer training costs are also significantly unbalanced, as are sorcerer attack spells, both of which have to do with a piss poor lore implementation. That is vs other pures. Ranged is also unbalanced, and needs a nerf.

[g++]

One thing I will readily admit, squares are NOT OP. Rogues are capable of strong, strong builds, but I wouldn't even say they are close to OP. Pures and Semis are more than capable of becoming completely overpowered *WHEN* comparing them to Squares.

The entire problem with gemstone balance in my opinion revolves around the fact that pures can give bonuses to other classes so when GM's do developement I think they just assume everyone is running around with a full complement of spells. That was actually pretty much the case when more people actually played the game and you could see 140th level warriors and rogues running around with full spell ups being basically invincible. Then everyone left entirely so no spell ups were usually available. Now I dont even think it would be fun to play a rogue or warrior from level 1 to cap without a second account.

The playerbase has shifted from people who think about roleplaying and bullshit like that to people who look for optimal ways to do things and clearly squares are not optimal. They get injured, they cant boost their defense in any meaningful way except through armor and even then they still get injured, their attack strategies are convoluted and time consuming and the mechanics behind cmans and hiding are frustrating and outdated. They basically bring a host of problems to the table that pures simply dont experience and at the end of the day they dont bring any hugely attractive positives.

[Fallen]

The entire problem with gemstone balance in my opinion revolves around the fact that pures can give bonuses to other classes so when GM's do developement I think they just assume everyone is running around with a full complement of spells. That was actually pretty much the case when more people actually played the game and you could see 140th level warriors and rogues running around with full spell ups being basically invincible. Then everyone left entirely so no spell ups were usually available. Now I dont even think it would be fun to play a rogue or warrior from level 1 to cap without a second account.

The playerbase has shifted from people who think about roleplaying and bullshit like that to people who look for optimal ways to do things and clearly squares are not optimal. They get injured, they cant boost their defense in any meaningful way except through armor and even then they still get injured, their attack strategies are convoluted and time consuming and the mechanics behind cmans and hiding are frustrating and outdated. They basically bring a host of problems to the table that pures simply dont experience and at the end of the day they dont bring any hugely attractive positives.

I think casting rogue archers are by far the strongest square builds. You have a fast attack that can be aimed from hiding. You dont NEED to hide, but you're safer if you do. You kill nearly as fast as the fastest pure, especially if you get a few haste imbeds.

As for outside spells, see the Ta'Illistim Druid... http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=53021


Nindon whispers, "A delicate pink carnation wristlet (7000, 5 rubs 509), a pale lavender orchid pendant (9000, 12 rubs 202), some twisted blue valerian (6500, 16 rubs 103), a ring of white moonflowers (5500, 8 rubs 206), a silvery lily pin (7000, 10 rubs 205), a braided headband of red begonias (5000, 4 rubs 911), a long-stalked sunflower (6000, 20 rubs 601), a bracelet of ivory daisies (3000, 3 rubs 414), a thin blue gardenia anklet (5500, 7 rubs 207), a necklace of scented heather (5000, 4 rubs 511), a long iris pendant (9000, 4 rubs 211), a spread of pale grape leaves (2000, 3 rubs 113) and a strip of black willow bark (5000, 3 rubs 114, don't wear)."

Any square not walking around with these (assuming they know of them) is remaining purposefully gimped, second account or no. BEYOND these? Having a wizard quickly imbedding a few rods of 503 and 508 and you're set. You will be spelled enough for nearly ANY scenario outside of invasions. Bottom line is not ALL squares are as balanced as they should be. Namely warriors are too slow. Also, squares are NOT balanced to be self-spelled, aside from perhaps the casting rogue. That doesn't matter, though, as it is NOT difficult to have all the spells needed at your disposal in nearly limitless qualities.

[Methais]

I guess I don't really see what balance matters,

It doesn't, because GS isn't a PvP game. Simu still hasn't realized this.

[JHarris]

60mtp +60ptp != 120 mtp

http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/facepalm2.jpg

I don't even know why I bother. It is one thing if I want to get into an argument with like Gib or someone who atleast is arguing from a position of knowledge, however misguided he may be. But if I wanted to correct math all day I would be a teacher.


Okay. This is a little bit ridiculous. Do you bother to read the posts of the person you are arguing with, or do you just decide for them what they are saying and then mock them for that?

Here's what I said:
Regardless of what you earn back due to double or triple training something, each level still only gives 60/60. You don't get magic bonus TPs. Your decision to double or triple train something and then get the points back is just spending TPs in advance, in a way. 120 mtps is still 120 mtps. You simply don't get more.

Does that claim that 60ptp + 60 mtp = 120 mtp? No! Please, use some, ANY, reading comprehension. The 120 is 120 was not in reference to the 60/60, it is in reference to how much a spell costs. Should I quote you and say something like "Just because I mentioned 2 things in the same paragraph doesn't mean they are the same?"

I made the point that, no matter how you slice it, you get only so many TPs in a level. Doesn't matter if you tripled 9 skills the level before. In the end, if you are level 50, you have the same number of gross TPs no matter what you trained or when. I stated that a spell for a warrior is 120 MTPs, which is absolutely more than 1 level's worth of TPs. End of story. You don't get more overall TPs because you tripled earlier. Yes, some unconvert, but they represent you overspending earlier. They are not new TP's. So yes, you do not get 120 MTPs at any level from that level. You will probably have MTPs carrying over from previous levels due to unconverting.

To recap, so that you don't miss my point YET AGAIN: In a level, you get, at max, 60ptps/60mtps. This does not give you enough for 120 mtps. Ever. Sooo... warriors have to spend over a full level of experience to buy a single spell. Which is what I said from the beginning, which is what you mocked me for incorrectly, which is what you also changed in order to mock me further.

Seriously. Reading comprehension.

[g++]

The fact is I could log in an empath, wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or bard completely naked and within a half hour be kicking ass with no help in any like leveled hunting ground in gemstone except possibly roa'ters. You really cant say the same for squares. You need other people or items or some bonus that pures just get inherently and thats a huge weakness.

Also I have played an archer rogue and you still get your ass handed to you occasionally so dont over sell them because you play one at cap or something. They are very good and very fun but lets face it a halfling wizard gets the same result by spamming the f1 key which is put stance off/rput inc 904/stance def and does it in less time.

[Warriorbird]

I always thought advertising and staff were the historic problem children of GS.

[Methais]

I always thought advertising and staff were the historic problem children of GS.

I always thought it was Whatley's coke habit.

[Warriorbird]

Now we're heading into the right territory.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jQvXoj%2BFL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[Methais]

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/problemchild.jpg

[Fallen]

I have played an archer rogue and you still get your ass handed to you occasionally so dont over sell them because you play one at cap or something. They are very good and very fun but lets face it a halfling wizard gets the same result by spamming the f1 key which is put stance off/rput inc 904/stance def and does it in less time.

Well, I haven't played a rogue archer, but I have played a bolting wizard, and not being able to aim your shots will make a rogue popping eyes more efficient. Not QUITE as fast, but close.


The fact is I could log in an empath, wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or bard completely naked and within a half hour be kicking ass with no help in any like leveled hunting ground in gemstone except possibly roa'ters.

I've never understood this need to be completely 100% self-reliant. E's build works because of a 10x Shield, a mountain of Spirit/Aura enhancives, and about 50 infused scrolls which take an hour a week min to maintain. I also don't see how raising a few rods and rubbing a few flowers equates to some massive inequality that cannot be easily overcome. I'm not arguing that most squares are not self-reliant. I'm arguing it is no big deal at all TO be reliant on gear/imbeds. You're much, much better off for it, and it takes very little effort.

[g++]

I've never understood this need to be completely 100% self-reliant. E's build works because of a 10x Shield, a mountain of Spirit/Aura enhancives, and about 50 infused scrolls which take an hour a week min to maintain. I also don't see how raising a few rods and rubbing a few flowers equates to some massive inequality that cannot be easily overcome. I'm not arguing that most squares are not self-reliant. I'm arguing it is no big deal at all TO be reliant on gear/imbeds. You're much, much better off for it, and it takes very little effort.


Dont get what im saying confused I am not by any means saying rogues and warriors are unplayable or not worth it. Im just stating a fact : Its harder to hunt and when you are by yourself the disperity in difficulty becomes rediculous. I have played rogue archer, three different bolting wizards. Pretty much every class in the game at one point or another and the reason its important is that if I log on after not playing for 2 years or late at night to a character I need self reliance. My friends from 1998 are not going to spell me up and im not gonna drop 500 bucks on items so I can play a rogue or warrior. Ill just roll a wizard or empath because its easy as shit and you can do it without going through a ton of hassles, having to buy herbs every half hours, beg for spells, or ask people to tag along.

[crb]

Okay. This is a little bit ridiculous. Do you bother to read the posts of the person you are arguing with, or do you just decide for them what they are saying and then mock them for that?

Here's what I said:
Regardless of what you earn back due to double or triple training something, each level still only gives 60/60. You don't get magic bonus TPs. Your decision to double or triple train something and then get the points back is just spending TPs in advance, in a way. 120 mtps is still 120 mtps. You simply don't get more.

Does that claim that 60ptp + 60 mtp = 120 mtp? No! Please, use some, ANY, reading comprehension. The 120 is 120 was not in reference to the 60/60, it is in reference to how much a spell costs. Should I quote you and say something like "Just because I mentioned 2 things in the same paragraph doesn't mean they are the same?"

I made the point that, no matter how you slice it, you get only so many TPs in a level. Doesn't matter if you tripled 9 skills the level before. In the end, if you are level 50, you have the same number of gross TPs no matter what you trained or when. I stated that a spell for a warrior is 120 MTPs, which is absolutely more than 1 level's worth of TPs. End of story. You don't get more overall TPs because you tripled earlier. Yes, some unconvert, but they represent you overspending earlier. They are not new TP's. So yes, you do not get 120 MTPs at any level from that level. You will probably have MTPs carrying over from previous levels due to unconverting.

To recap, so that you don't miss my point YET AGAIN: In a level, you get, at max, 60ptps/60mtps. This does not give you enough for 120 mtps. Ever. Sooo... warriors have to spend over a full level of experience to buy a single spell. Which is what I said from the beginning, which is what you mocked me for incorrectly, which is what you also changed in order to mock me further.

Seriously. Reading comprehension.

I couldn't find a triple facepalm picture. Or I would use it.

For a warrior, each ptp is worth 2 mtp, through conversion, so when you get 60 ptp, you really get 120 mtp, making your total mtp for a level: 180.

You'll notice, being postcap, when you gain your 1/1 every 2.5k experience you actually gain 0/3, not 1/1. Funny, that.

This was my whole point about mtps being cheap for squares and ptps being cheap for pures. But... again... you've shown your vast ignorance of game mechanics. I highly suspect you're a noob who bought a capped player.

[Drew]

:violin:

Did I make you a sad panda drew?

No I really don't care about you other than the slight annoyance of skipping your long posts. I used to read them though and I just don't understand A. Why you still play the game, and B. How you have this much time to bicker over the internet.

Maybe you're just one of those people who isn't happy if they aren't outraged. That's not me and I don't understand it.

[crb]

No I really don't care about you other than the slight annoyance of skipping your long posts. I used to read them though and I just don't understand A. Why you still play the game, and B. How you have this much time to bicker over the internet.

Maybe you're just one of those people who isn't happy if they aren't outraged. That's not me and I don't understand it.

You sure its not you? I mean... you seem to put a lot of effort into complaining about me. Even in this very thread, above someone asked me a question, and unbidden you answered for me... that takes a special person... with perhaps time to bicker on the Internet?

I'm just saying, kettle, perhaps you should stop yelling at the pot.

[Lumi]

I couldn't find a triple facepalm picture. Or I would use it.

For a warrior, each ptp is worth 2 mtp, through conversion, so when you get 60 ptp, you really get 120 mtp, making your total mtp for a level: 180.

You'll notice, being postcap, when you gain your 1/1 every 2.5k experience you actually gain 0/3, not 1/1. Funny, that.

This was my whole point about mtps being cheap for squares and ptps being cheap for pures. But... again... you've shown your vast ignorance of game mechanics. I highly suspect you're a noob who bought a capped player.

Okay, I totally deserve whatever I get for bothering to respond to your post, but here we go...

YOU CAN'T USE THE CONVERSION OF TPs TO EXPLAIN HOW A CHARACTER GETS MORE THAN 60/60 PER LEVEL.

I honestly don't believe you're this fucking stupid, which is sad, because the only other explanation is malicious misinformation.

Someone at cap isn't magically getting '0/3'. They're getting 1/1, but they have to give up 1 of those points to undo a 2-point conversion from a previous investment. That does NOT mean that you get 180 MTPs per level. It means, if anything, you get only 90 TPs per level if you're being forced to convert.

During a single level, with perfect stats (unachievable by anyone, ftr), one would get 60/60 P/M. UNCONVERTING PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED TPs DOESN'T. FUCKING. MATTER.

For a spell that costs 120 MTPs, the points earned over the course of one level will be insufficient to train that spell. 60 PTPs convert to 30 MTPs, plus the 60 they get for the level is 90. Not 180. You don't get double points if you convert; you get half, and the next level you'll get to unconvert some as you gain MORE experience.

If I were a GM, I wouldn't want to do anything for sorcerers just because of you. Which is sad, because by and large I really like the rest of the sorcerous community, but you're just a straight up douchenozzle.

[Drew]

You sure its not you? I mean... you seem to put a lot of effort into complaining about me. Even in this very thread, above someone asked me a question, and unbidden you answered for me... that takes a special person... with perhaps time to bicker on the Internet?

I'm just saying, kettle, perhaps you should stop yelling at the pot.

Not really, the only thing that does bother me about you is when you argue in politics for conservative ideals and you use the same disingenuous logic that Lumi pointed out. It makes those of us who aren't crazy and are generally conservative look as dumb as you.

[crb]

Okay, I totally deserve whatever I get for bothering to respond to your post, but here we go...

YOU CAN'T USE THE CONVERSION OF TPs TO EXPLAIN HOW A CHARACTER GETS MORE THAN 60/60 PER LEVEL.

I honestly don't believe you're this fucking stupid, which is sad, because the only other explanation is malicious misinformation.

Someone at cap isn't magically getting '0/3'. They're getting 1/1, but they have to give up 1 of those points to undo a 2-point conversion from a previous investment. That does NOT mean that you get 180 MTPs per level. It means, if anything, you get only 90 TPs per level if you're being forced to convert.

During a single level, with perfect stats (unachievable by anyone, ftr), one would get 60/60 P/M. UNCONVERTING PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED TPs DOESN'T. FUCKING. MATTER.

For a spell that costs 120 MTPs, the points earned over the course of one level will be insufficient to train that spell. 60 PTPs convert to 30 MTPs, plus the 60 they get for the level is 90. Not 180. You don't get double points if you convert; you get half, and the next level you'll get to unconvert some as you gain MORE experience.

If I were a GM, I wouldn't want to do anything for sorcerers just because of you. Which is sad, because by and large I really like the rest of the sorcerous community, but you're just a straight up douchenozzle.

Wow, you feel pretty strongly about this issue.

The question you need to ask yourself is, when someone levels up who has converted a lot of TPs, do they get a lot of TPs back, yes or no?

You might call them fake TPs, or say they don't count because they were spent before, or whatever other bullshit you want to say, but that doesn't make them not exist.

Or, look at it another way, if I asked a warrior if he would rather have a MTP or a PTP which would he say? If I asked a sorcerer? A wizard?

Maybe, being a semi, you're some loser bard aren't you, you're not as familiar with the concept of conversion. It is one huge benefit of semis that they, often, don't have to deal with this.

But, for professions that are forced to convert a majority of their opposite realm training points to be able to afford their core skills, there is always conversion, and you get points back.

This, in effect, makes physical points cheaper than mental points for pures. You see, once you start converting, everything is measured in PTPs. If someone asked on the sorcerer boards how much a triple spell rank cost, it'll be 64 PTPS, not 32 MTPS. We'll always use the PTP number because that is all we end up having.

So, this whole tangential argument is whether or not a warrior can spend all the TPs they get during a level to gain a spell rank.

The answer is yes. If a warrior trains in nothing over the course of a level, then immediately levels up, they will have enough MTPS to buy a spell. Unless they're like level 0.

You can whine about this fact all you want, but it is true. You can say that it isn't fair because some of the TPs are from previously trained physical skills that got unconverted and the warrior should be spending those to maintain his physical skills. But Harris didn't say a warrior couldn't afford a single spell in a level while still keeping up all core skills, he said he couldn't afford a single spell even if he spent all his tps.

You're trying to look at the issue in a vacuum, but characters don't exist in a vacuum.

And really, this whole discussion is just a tangent, the barest relevance is the point that MTPs are cheaper for warriors and they have the luxury of not ALSO having to spend PTPs (which are expensive for them) to get magical skills, vs the very fucking annoying MTP requirement tacked onto so many physical skills.

[crb]

Not really, the only thing that does bother me about you is when you argue in politics for conservative ideals and you use the same disingenuous logic that Lumi pointed out. It makes those of us who aren't crazy and are generally conservative look as dumb as you.

Nothing disingenuous about pointing out how things actually exist.

Do warriors actually get more than 120 MTPs suddenly available when they level up? Thus enabling to train in a spell rank if they did nothing else.

Yes.

That actually happens, in game, all the time. My 60s wizard for instance gets 230ish PTPs at every training. With a square it is the opposite. And in soviet russia training points get you.

In a vacuum you can at most get 60/60, but in the real fantasy world that actually exists (on a hard drive) previous training choices result in your 60 physical points being automatically converted into 120 mental points.

We could say we're both right, you're right in theory, I'm right in reality. Your example is a theory, mine happens every day in game.

[g++]

As usual I have put my foot in my mouth while trying to belittle another poster and have found myself on the wrong end of a pointless argument. In order to get out of this without losing the small amount of self worth I retain from my gemstoneIII knowledge I will now become a raging prick.

Yah we get it.

[JHarris]

Okay, CRB. Cling to your point in the face of logic. I guess you win.

[crb]

gah, you're a sore loser. I'm sorry the reality of the game environment doesn't mesh with your supposed logical (in your mind only) theory of the warrior that has so many excess ptps he converts them into mtps to learn a spell.

Actually, to be honest, I have seen your warrior. He is at the "I exist" support group with the easter bunny and the diet dr pepper.

[pabstblueribbon]

http://images.memegenerator.net/Starebert/ImageMacro/2605561/CRB-WILL-EAT-YOUR-DICK-IN-INTERNATIONAL-WATERS.jpg

[Lumi]

The question you need to ask yourself is, when someone levels up who has converted a lot of TPs, do they get a lot of TPs back, yes or no?

No, that's the question you have to ask to try and justify your ludicrous position that:


.. 120 mtp. That's more than a level's worth of TPs.


isn't true.


Maybe, being a semi, you're some loser bard aren't you, you're not as familiar with the concept of conversion. It is one huge benefit of semis that they, often, don't have to deal with this.

It's nice not having to put any effort into proving how out of touch and clueless you are. I'm about the last person you should be trying to level that accusation at.


So, this whole tangential argument is whether or not a warrior can spend all the TPs they get during a level to gain a spell rank.

Try again. This is you trying to twist words to cover your ass. The original statement, as I quoted above so you can re-read it, is that a warrior spends more than an entire level's worth of TPs.


The answer is yes.

0/120 > 60/60, courtesy of your vaunted conversion mechanic. The answer is no.


If a warrior trains in nothing over the course of a level, then immediately levels up, they will have enough MTPS to buy a spell. Unless they're like level 0.

This doesn't actually have any relevance to the original statement, that a single spell costs more than a level's worth of TPs for a warrior. But you stick with your transparently malicious misinformation. It's okay, everyone else knows who the actual "sore loser" here is.


But Harris didn't say a warrior couldn't afford a single spell in a level while still keeping up all core skills, he said he couldn't afford a single spell even if he spent all his tps.


Actually, no. Just one more time, what he said was "...120 MTPs. That's more than a level's worth of TPs."

You. Are. Wrong. Please collect your things, exit the thread, and make room for another contributing poster. Thank you.

[Warriorbird]

I'm going to ignore my personal feelings about anybody in this conversation.

Warriors can not buy a spell with 1 level of training points.

[DaCapn]

Ordinarily I'm a "read every single word and argue every point to the bitter end" kind of guy (when there's 3 pages of discussion on the rogue boards with Grendeg manifestos, I still read it all). I think reading every word of the exchanges between Virilneus & everyone else about CMAN VANISH irreversibly changed me, though.

There's a concept in debate where one side can generate falsehoods or arguments with logical fallacies at a rate faster than the opposing side can prove them to be incorrect. It always comes to mind when considering people like Virilneus or Kent Hovind.

I'll at least wrap up my intended remarks based upon Virilneus's answer to my previously posed question, though:


sorcerer to cap
empath to cap
cleric to 60s
another empath to 60s
wizard to 60s
another wizard to 60s
a third wizard to 40s
a fourth wizard to 30s
rogue to 20s
warrior to 20s
ranger to 30s
bard to 30s
another warrior to 20s
third empath to 20s

I also have a capped rogue, but bought him at 97.

I don't doubt that you have some valid complaints about sorcerers but your lack of experience with squares speaks a lot to the validity of your comparisons. You've successfully experienced the first 10% of warriors & rogues and the last 5% of rogues. You've seen the early cookie-cutter build period for both squares and then have seen the final lateral growth period for rogues. However, you've missed the other 85% of the game where you actually experience training sacrifices and extreme trade-offs.

I really was honestly ready to re-consider my view of your rants if you had more experience with squares, though.

Your "nerf bards" plea seems a bit silly too. I haven't gotten my bard to the point where I can try out a pure build (and neither have you, it seems). But it sounds like... well... basically what I'm used to doing with my wizards. What's the problem? The fact that they're doing it with CS and you think that's unfair because it should be the sorcerer domain? In your own words..


:violin:

On to the rational world:


I think casting rogue archers are by far the strongest square builds. You have a fast attack that can be aimed from hiding. You dont NEED to hide, but you're safer if you do. You kill nearly as fast as the fastest pure, especially if you get a few haste imbeds.

It's for sure a fun build with a lot of range. It does have limitations, though. Since you sacrifice weighting, you have a hard time against creatures with a lot of DS (it's hard to get a high enough endroll) but it's not too bad. Creatures with natural padding/plate are a total nightmare (an endroll around 700+ gives 100% kill chance and about 400 puts you in the 50% zone). Also if you cause a rank 3 wound and don't kill outright, you can't aim for the same area. Grimswarm Giant paladin/warriors for example tend to be 10-20 shot plink-sessions for me.

I'm thinking of moving away from being a ranged ewaver and going to more ranged stealth. Or possibly going back to sword/board to focus on hamstring + dagger eye-shots. The spell research penalty to redux is crippling if you go up to ewave.

[ruineye]

UNCONVERTING PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED TPs DOESN'T. FUCKING. MATTER.

At the risk of buzzkilling a perfectly good thread...

Whether or not one considers the # of previously converted TPs to approach infinity (as Viril appears to), does very much affect the appropriate sigma-algebra and thus the validity of each poster's math.

[g++]

At the risk of buzzkilling a perfectly good thread...

Whether or not one considers the # of previously converted TPs to approach infinity (as Viril appears to), does very much affect the appropriate sigma-algebra and thus the validity of each poster's math.

You can prove there is a limit by simply going to a spread sheet giving yourself a million of each and trying to spend them all. Proof by counter example that it does not approach infinity.

You could also prove CRB wrong in this case by brute force by just rolling a warrior logging yourself running to the nodes to get to level 1 and then attempting to train a spell. It would only be about a 5 page log.

[Celephais]

You can prove there is a limit by simply going to a spread sheet giving yourself a million of each and trying to spend them all. Proof by counter example that it does not approach infinity.

You could also prove CRB wrong in this case by brute force by just rolling a warrior logging yourself running to the nodes to get to level 1 and then attempting to train a spell. It would only be about a 5 page log.

http://www.deadlylight.com/charactersheet/wizard.html?MTP=1000000&PTP=1000000

For those curious, it takes:

22119 PTP
32926 MTP

To train in everything as a Wizard.

[Lumi]

At the risk of buzzkilling a perfectly good thread...

Whether or not one considers the # of previously converted TPs to approach infinity (as Viril appears to), does very much affect the appropriate sigma-algebra and thus the validity of each poster's math.

The validity of his math doesn't really matter when it only applies to his own scenario, which doesn't actually pertain to the original statement.

Since I'm just not tired of saying it yet, I'll throw it out there one more time: with perfect stats, a character is granted 60/60 P/M. A warrior needs 0/120 to train a spell. A warrior must spend more than an entire level's worth of TPs to gain a spell.

[crb]

You can prove there is a limit by simply going to a spread sheet giving yourself a million of each and trying to spend them all. Proof by counter example that it does not approach infinity.

You could also prove CRB wrong in this case by brute force by just rolling a warrior logging yourself running to the nodes to get to level 1 and then attempting to train a spell. It would only be about a 5 page log.

I didn't say always afford it. I even mentioned a low level exception.

I said it happens. Harris said it was impossible.

For a warrior who has converted a lot of training points, which is most warriors, each ptp is worth 2 mtp which gives them around 180mtp, max, when leveling, which is enough to learn a spell.

Compare this to you lot, whom in your obvious dislike for me I think have decided to argue against this will known reality, just because I'm the one on the other side. I find it mildly funny.

See, in earlier levels, warriors overpay for physical skills by cashing in mtps at a rate of two to one. In later levels, the system automatically tries to rebalance by reversing that trend and giving a warrior 2 mtps for every 1 ptp they earn.

Thus, they earn triple mtps, just like high level pures earn triple ptps.

That is reality. That is what happens. Your imaginary warrior who wants to learn spells at level 0 or whatever won't have this happen. My real warrior who starts getting interested at higher levels will.

I've already said we're both right, except that my example actually exists. But yours in theory is right too. Go you! Gold star! You've got a theoretical situation in which you're not wrong!

You could admit to this simple truth, or just keep insulting my intelligence, logic, or math. But let me clue you in on something, I've got pretty good self esteem, that insult route is probably not going to work to change my mind... but then I guess if you were just doing it to feel better about yourself, then maybe it is working. And you may continue, I'll help you out.

[crb]

The validity of his math doesn't really matter when it only applies to his own scenario, which doesn't actually pertain to the original statement.

Since I'm just not tired of saying it yet, I'll throw it out there one more time: with perfect stats, a character is granted 60/60 P/M. A warrior needs 0/120 to train a spell. A warrior must spend more than an entire level's worth of TPs to gain a spell.

And high level warriors are granted 2 mtps for every ptp earned, thus giving them, at max, 0/180. Which is enough.

These aren't gains from being a higher level, which pushes the actual number up over 0/200. These are the actual ptps earned that actual level being actually converted into actual double the amount of mtps by the actual computer that runs the actual game before you have a chance to do anything with them.

Because, in reality, prior to being interested in spells, most warriors will have trained heavily in physical skills, paying 2 mtps for every 1 ptp. Once they start getting interested in mental skills, the system forces them to rebalance like this.

For any profession that has converted mtps into ptps, the system automatically turn each ptp they earn into 2 mtps until they have no banked conversions. The opposite is also true. This is how the game exists. This is a straight value conversion. With those 0/180 points the warrior can convert 120 back into physical points thus having 60/60 through training in physical skills. This is changing a dollar into 4 quarters for a payphone, you still have a dollar in value. So the warrior gets 0/180 and can choose to convert those mental points to physical to get back down to 60/60, by spending it on physical things. OR they can not have to convert it and spend it on mental things, like a spell rank.


Arguing over a simple game mechanic you're all aware of just because you think you've "got me" is retarded, but funny. So keep making yourself look spiteful.

Reality calls, won't you join us?

[Lumi]

And high level warriors are granted 2 mtps for every ptp earned, thus giving them, at max, 0/180. Which is enough.

These aren't gains from being a higher level, which pushes the actual number up over 0/200. These are the actual ptps earned that actual level being actually converted into actual double the amount of mtps by the actual computer that runs the actual game before you have a chance to do anything with them.

Because, in reality, prior to being interested in spells, most warriors will have trained heavily in physical skills, paying 2 mtps for every 1 ptp. Once they start getting interested in mental skills, the system forces them to rebalance like this.

For any profession that has converted mtps into ptps, the system automatically turn each ptp they earn into 2 mtps until they have no banked conversions. The opposite is also true. This is how the game exists. This is a straight value conversion. With those 0/180 points the warrior can convert 120 back into physical points thus having 60/60 through training in physical skills. This is changing a dollar into 4 quarters for a payphone, you still have a dollar in value. So the warrior gets 0/180 and can choose to convert those mental points to physical to get back down to 60/60, by spending it on physical things. OR they can not have to convert it and spend it on mental things, like a spell rank.


Arguing over a simple game mechanic you're all aware of just because you think you've "got me" is retarded, but funny. So keep making yourself look spiteful.

Reality calls, won't you join us?

Last time I kill off some brain cells responding to you.

At no point, ever, is a PTP worth 2 MTPs. Ever. A PTP is worth .5 MTPs, and vice versa, since that's the rate conversion happens at. Look at it this way: if conversion is required to train rank X of a particular skill at the time it is trained, the character in question is getting only half the potential efficiency out of those converted points. He's spending more than the skill should cost (18/0 instead of 6/6, for example) to get that rank. When he gains more TPs, it corrects that previous inefficiency.

You're not getting more than 60/60 TPs per level, ever. If you've been converting, however, you get to massage out some of the training inefficiency of previous skill training, because now that you've gained more experience, and more TPs of each type, your total TP pool allows you to convert one less point (of whichever type you were converting) to achieve your existing training.

If I had 18/0 and I trained a rank of Dodging (the converted cost for a pure bard, which normally costs 6/6), and then I earned 1/1 from experience gain, I end up with 3/0, but this is because if I'd had that extra 1/1 in the first place, I could have spent it on that 6/6, bringing the remaining cost down to 5/5.

18/0 - 5/5 == 3/0 (after conversion). I'm not getting anything extra, I'm just improving the efficiency of previous training decisions. Or, in essence, the only way I'm getting "more" points now is as a result of having "fewer" points in previous levels.

You "lose" points by converting, and then "get them back" by earning more TPs and unconverting...but either way, you still don't get more than 60/60 experience for one level's worth of experience.

Here's one more for you: take a look at a newly capped character, one with perfect stats (pretend for a moment that that's possible). He cannot, under any circumstances, have more than 6060/6060 TPs. Any capped character (that started with all 100s) is going to have 6060 + (post-cap experience/2500) TPs of each type. If you look at their total TP expenditure, after accounting for conversion, that's exactly what it's going to add up to.

Conversion only gets you "extra" points if you take into account that it "took away" points earlier on.

You're a classless shmuck, and I'm done trying to explain what everyone, including you, already knows. Enjoy your eraging.


As usual I have put my foot in my mouth while trying to belittle another poster and have found myself on the wrong end of a pointless argument. In order to get out of this without losing the small amount of self worth I retain from my gemstoneIII knowledge I will now become a raging prick.

qft.

[Fallen]

This is symantics. Someone grab a log of their warrior leveling up at any level past say..50. Count how many TPs you have available to you at that point. Is it more or less than 60/60? Don't factor in X, or factor out Y.

How many points are available to you to spend on your skills?

[g++]

This is symantics. Someone grab a log of their warrior leveling up at any level past say..50. Count how many TPs you have available to you at that point. Is it more or less than 60/60? Don't factor in X, or factor out Y.

How many points are available to you to spend on your skills?

How about a log of me fixskilling a level 100 mage? Can mages train 200 ranks of spells per level? Your awarded 60/60 per level MAX if you can figure out how to make 60/60 into 0/120 you win. Otherwise you are simply wrong. Using unconverted training points is exactly the same as using points from a previous level.

[Lumi]

This is symantics. Someone grab a log of their warrior leveling up at any level past say..50. Count how many TPs you have available to you at that point. Is it more or less than 60/60? Don't factor in X, or factor out Y.

How many points are available to you to spend on your skills?

C'mon, Evarin, you know better than this. It isn't semantics, it's misinformation.

How about this? Can a warrior EVER be 1x in spells (before post-cap experience comes into play)?


Using unconverted training points is exactly the same as using points from a previous level.

Exactly!

[Jace Solo]

Wait, if you have 60/60 and use them all for mental abilities the don't you have 0/90 for that given level?

[Smythe]

^ bingo!

- Smythe

[Fallen]

So you guys don't ever spend the unconverted points on anything because they don't exist? I admire your strict adherence to your beliefs. You guys are just as set as V to play the, "I'm not wrong no matter what!" game.

[Ceyrin]

http://rlv.zcache.com/all_ponzi_schemes_are_unsustainable_economics_tshi rt-p235660899207314582trlf_400.jpg

[Celephais]

How about a log of me fixskilling a level 100 mage? Can mages train 200 ranks of spells per level? Your awarded 60/60 per level MAX if you can figure out how to make 60/60 into 0/120 you win. Otherwise you are simply wrong. Using unconverted training points is exactly the same as using points from a previous level.

Mages cannot get 60/60. Having Aura as a prime stat screws them. Not only that 60/60 is impossible for other reasons.

Unconverting points will give you double of the other type of point, but you cannot say you are using less than a levels worth of training points, because you're using the formerly converted points from another level on this level. So while going from level 99 to level 100 may net you more than 120 MTP to spend, those points aren't all from 99 to 100, some are from 98-99, etc. This means that given 100 levels you would not be able to get 100 spells. Yet this does mean that you could train as normal for 50 levels, and then from 50-100 get 50 spells.

[Lumi]

So you guys don't ever spend the unconverted points on anything because they don't exist? I admire your strict adherence to your beliefs. You guys are just as set as V to play the, "I'm not wrong no matter what!" game.

...dude. See below.


Mages cannot get 60/60. Having Aura as a prime stat screws them. Not only that 60/60 is impossible for other reasons.

Unconverting points will give you double of the other type of point, but you cannot say you are using less than a levels worth of training points, because you're using the formerly converted points from another level on this level. So while going from level 99 to level 100 may net you more than 120 MTP to spend, those points aren't all from 99 to 100, some are from 98-99, etc. This means that given 100 levels you would not be able to get 100 spells. Yet this does mean that you could train as normal for 50 levels, and then from 50-100 get 50 spells.

No one is saying that there is no instance in which a warrior will train and suddenly find himself with enough TPs to learn a spell. What we are saying is that it takes more than 1 whole level's worth of TPs to train that spell, and that subsequently a warrior can never be 1x in spells. The only way a warrior learns a spell is by spending a whole level's worth of TPs, and then borrowing from another level's worth of TPs.

[Fallen]

Yeah, I get that you're debating the meaning of the phrase, "A level's worth." Was there a point to it? Warriors can use those extra points for spells if they let them build, be they from that level, from 15 levels ago, or a gift from the ghost of Khaladon.

Can we atleast all agree that warriors spending points to learn spells, WHEREVER the fuck they get them, is dumb and inefficient?

[Lumi]

Yeah, I get that you're debating the meaning of the phrase, "A level's worth." Was there a point to it? Warriors can use those extra points for spells if they let them build, be they from that level, from 15 levels ago, or a gift from the ghost of Khaladon.

Can we atleast all agree that warriors spending points to learn spells, WHEREVER the fuck they get them, is dumb and inefficient?

There was a point to it way back in the thread before V derailed it with a sorcrusade.

As for warriors learning spells...eh, I once had a Fu warrior that I learned 102 with, but otherwise, yeah, I guess it's not as efficient as just getting some ASMIU and keeping oneself spelled that way. Particularly with GoS now making mana more important as well.

[JHarris]

Yeah, I get that you're debating the meaning of the phrase, "A level's worth." Was there a point to it? Warriors can use those extra points for spells if they let them build, be they from that level, from 15 levels ago, or a gift from the ghost of Khaladon.

Can we atleast all agree that warriors spending points to learn spells, WHEREVER the fuck they get them, is dumb and inefficient?

If I'm not mistaken, the point of the argument was that CRB called me a noob who didn't understand mechanics for making the point that it costs more than a level's worth of TPs for a warrior to train a spell. I think we can all agree that this was an asinine statement.

And yes, it is dumb and ineffecient, pre-cap, for warrior to train spells. With enough exp, it would be nice for a warrior to have 425 and 430, though. Short of having the excess 6mil experience for those 2 spells (and nothing else better to spend it on), you might as well just use imbeds/scrolls/friendly casters.

[g++]

Yeah, I get that you're debating the meaning of the phrase, "A level's worth." Was there a point to it? Warriors can use those extra points for spells if they let them build, be they from that level, from 15 levels ago, or a gift from the ghost of Khaladon.

Can we atleast all agree that warriors spending points to learn spells, WHEREVER the fuck they get them, is dumb and inefficient?

If CRB was not trying to bully JHarris I doubt anyone would have gotten involved but if someones going to be a complete prick and simultaneously be wrong. Yah its going to turn into one of these.

[crb]

You make me feel stupid and I resent you for that, so I get angry and I respond with rage, I'm sorry for going way off the deepend on this very minor issue. It probably wouldn't have happened with someone else, but I dislike you so much that it makes it all the worse that you keep making me feel stupid.


Thanks, very big of you Lumi.

I've pointed out many times you guys were talking theory, and I was talking reality, and that we were both right. I know I get your hackles up, but continuing to insist the way you do that a warrior could never pick up a spell without saving up more than one training is silly. Like I said, it happens every day.

So long as you're in a converted status any point awards gained for new experience of the point type of the opposite of your converted type will be automatically redeemed by the game into double the amount of points of the converted type while simultaneously lowering your converted total.

I'm saying, when a warrior levels up, the points to train a spell are available. You're saying... what? They aren't available? Thats easily proven false. You're saying they are available, but they don't count for the purposes of this discussion because they are the result of unconverted points previously earned and banked as the opposite point type?

All of which I admitted to pages ago...

My position has always been what happens in reality when an average warrior types "goals" after gaining a level (having not previously indulged in intra-level training).

I'm not wrong, you know I'm not wrong. You must, you just want to "put me in my place" so badly you're continuing with your specious argument.

[Lumi]

In an effort to get this thread back to something approximating helpful and on-topic...

As a pure bard, I use 1009, 1012, and 1014; I don't have gear to upgrade, and while I LOVE the mechanical advantages, sometimes I really feel like it'd be nice to have some project gear, or some toys to utilize for nifty effects. When this came up on the officials recently, it really got me interested.

What kind of standard-issue gear/toys would improve the pure experience from an upgradeable-inventory standpoint? It could be a new kind of runestaff charm, or a some kind of functional casting gloves, or whatever. But I'm thinking gear that would be available in a vanilla, "4x"-equivalent off-the-shelf variety, and could then be upgraded over time (preferably in ways similar to the enchanting/flaring/weighting/enhancive/etc. system that armor, shields, and weapons undergo). Something for pures to have as their "project gear".

[crb]

If CRB was not trying to bully JHarris I doubt anyone would have gotten involved but if someones going to be a complete prick and simultaneously be wrong. Yah its going to turn into one of these.

He said it took more than a level of saving to get a spell.

That is false. If you were engaged in the action of saving TPs as a moderately trained warrior, and I assumed he was speaking of a highly trained one as he is capped, it would take you less than a level to afford a spell.

If you're trying to save up for a vacation do you not count your tax refund towards the total because it is money you previously paid to the government?

Refunds count.

Come on, don't be a douche. Call me a prick, an ass, you'd probably be right, but don't sit here and insist refunded TPs aren't real and can't be used.

[g++]

He said it took more than a level of saving to get a spell.

That is false. If you were engaged in the action of saving TPs as a moderately trained warrior, and I assumed he was speaking of a highly trained one as he is capped, it would take you less than a level to afford a spell.

If you're trying to save up for a vacation do you not count your tax refund towards the total because it is money you previously paid to the government?

Refunds count.

Come on, don't be a douche. Call me a prick, an ass, you'd probably be right, but don't sit here and insist refunded TPs aren't real and can't be used.

They are real but they are unconverted from a previous level. Your original disagreement was with how JHarris interpreted "a levels worth of tps". He stated a level would be ~60/60 you said (In a condescending you dont know what the fuck you are talking about manner) because he is a warrior he would receive ~0/180 per level. Its just factually wrong. He receives 60/60 and is refunded 120 mental from previous levels. Even at cap training a spell for a warrior is more than "a levels worth of TP's" which is exactly what JHarris said and what you disagreed with.



Here's what I said:
Regardless of what you earn back due to double or triple training something, each level still only gives 60/60. You don't get magic bonus TPs. Your decision to double or triple train something and then get the points back is just spending TPs in advance, in a way. 120 mtps is still 120 mtps. You simply don't get more.


Correct.



For a warrior, each ptp is worth 2 mtp, through conversion, so when you get 60 ptp, you really get 120 mtp, making your total mtp for a level: 180.


Absolutely provably false.

[crb]

They are real but they are unconverted from a previous level. Your original disagreement was with how JHarris interpreted "a levels worth of tps". He stated a level would be ~60/60 you said (In a condescending you dont know what the fuck you are talking about manner) because he is a warrior he would receive ~0/180 per level. Its just factually wrong. He receives 60/60 and is refunded 120 mental from previous levels. Even at cap training a spell for a warrior is more than "a levels worth of TP's" which is exactly what JHarris said and what you disagreed with.


Alright fine, be a douche.

120+60 =???

Looks like 180 to me, so I'm saying he gets 180, you're saying I'm wrong and that he really gets 60 + 120? Kinda douchy isn't it?

I'm counting refunds, you're not. You're not doing so because it allows you to argue against me thus providing you with the opportunity of finally getting back at me for running over your dog, or what? Sleeping with your wife? I must have done something, right?

Anyways, can you spend the refunds? Are they available? Are they just as good as other points?

Seems to me the game makes absolutely no differentation between them, and neither should you. Just like with taxes, if you overpay during the year, you get a refund. You can spend that refund. If you overpay TPs previously, you can get a refund, also spendable.

No, a warrior can't single in spells for 100 levels. Yes, 9/10 warriors who save up for 1 level can earn a spell rank.

The points are there, they're real, you can spend them, and thanks to them you can afford a spell rank.

Now don't you have a vagina to go wash?

[g++]

Alright fine, be a douche.

120+60 =???

Looks like 180 to me, so I'm saying he gets 180, you're saying I'm wrong and that he really gets 60 + 120? Kinda douchy isn't it?

I'm counting refunds, you're not. You're not doing so because it allows you to argue against me thus providing you with the opportunity of finally getting back at me for running over your dog, or what? Sleeping with your wife? I must have done something, right?

Anyways, can you spend the refunds? Are they available? Are they just as good as other points?

Seems to me the game makes absolutely no differentation between them, and neither should you. Just like with taxes, if you overpay during the year, you get a refund. You can spend that refund. If you overpay TPs previously, you can get a refund, also spendable.

No, a warrior can't single in spells for 100 levels. Yes, 9/10 warriors who save up for 1 level can earn a spell rank.

The points are there, they're real, you can spend them, and thanks to them you can afford a spell rank.

Now don't you have a vagina to go wash?

Im saying he gets ~60/60 per level because thats actually what happens. Im not counting refunds per level because it makes no sense to include them when speaking in the context of a per level basis.

[drunksolo]

Any rational definition of 'a level's worth of TPs' precludes you from being correct Virilneus, and everybody knows it including you. You're just too fucking stubborn to admit you're wrong (which, no, is not an admirable trait in any way).

[crb]

So the refunded TPs you get over the course of a level are make believe?

I kinda think a rational definition of "a level of TPs" would be "the TPs gained over the course of a level"

Nice multiple account posting. Classy.

This is a stupid semantic argument in the end, but I'm not the rabid douche insisting the other side is wrong despite the stated example happening every day in game. I've said the other side is right, in theory, I've said no, a warrior can't single for 100 levels straight. But you lot still insist that refund conversions can't be spent? Aren't available? Don't exist?

[Celephais]

You're adding qualifiers to what a levels worth of TPs means. A levels worth of TPs is (eta: Less than) 60/60. If he said "Level 30 after going heavy into physical abilities worth of TPs" you'd be right. He didn't.

You're saying "a level's worth of TPs with being able to unconvert 60 PTPs into 120 MTPs".

It's like saying I can buy a house with a years worth of my salary*

*after investing that salary for 30 years

[crb]

Not quite Celephais, because you're not "given" the extra 120 mtps. That is a conversion of the 60 ptps you earn. The system makes you trade them in for previously spent mtps.

What you're saying is you're not allowed to use a tax refund as part of a downpayment on a house. Which is just silly.

As for this:



"Level 30 after going heavy into physical abilities worth of TPs"

Yes, you're right. I would assume in a conversation about warrior training with a capped warrior we're talking about average warriors, not theoretical warriors. As I've already mentioned. Call me an ass for assuming the more important thing was to consider the experience of the average player, rather than a theoretical mutant situation.

Had I known I'd have a bunch of people hanging on my every word with pinpricks, like so, I would have put an asterisk next to my original sentence reading "Based on the experience of the average averagely trained warrior saving up all available TPs for the period of one training cycle."

Suppose we were discussing how many ranks of PF a warrior could get in one level, would you count any MTPs he could convert to PTPs?

Suppose it wasn't a warrior, it was a wizard? Would you still?

This whole conversation reminds me of Doug's idiot point that a standard cleric training plan should include elemental lore. Because, theoretically to him, if a cleric were to also train in three lores like a sorcerer, it would include that. Nevermind that probably no cleric in the game would ever do so, reality wasn't of interest.

[Celephais]

That converstion of 60 ptps you earned could only happen because of how you spent your TPs the previous levels. Sure you can use a tax refund as part of a downpayment on your house, but you can't say you paid for the downpayment with your earnings from this year, you're paying for it with a refund from last years earnings. If someone says you should spend 3 months salary on an engagement ring, you look at what three months salary is, not what a particular 3 months salary including refunds from the previous year.

How about just understand what he said was that it's expensive, you're the one who "hung on the words" instead of the content.

[crb]

I never said it wasn't expensive.

And I'm hung on words?

I need to change my avatar to a full moon, because it seems whenever I post the crazies come out.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not actually sure describing a wide variety of people who've actually played a profession for a significant length of time as 'the crazies' is really a good idea.

[g++]

Nice multiple account posting. Classy.

If thats directed toward me its a miss.

[crb]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/cybersisters.jpg

http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/towelie.png

[Ceyrin]

QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQ

Why is it every thing you touch not only turns to poison, but is inevitably derailed, and considerably more homosexual than when it started?

I'm still wondering why you haven't quit myself. Nobody likes you. Nobody respects you or your opinons. If it wasn't for roomdata, I could and would say you don't contribute anything useful to the playing community at all.

When you have your denial break, remember to slash your wrists vertically, not horizontally.

[crb]

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-11-09/1257776577682.jpg

[Methais]

I'm still wondering why you haven't quit myself. Nobody likes you. Nobody respects you or your opinons. If it wasn't for roomdata, I could and would say you don't contribute anything useful to the playing community at all.

I agree with a lot of his opinions on things and I've always liked him. If I were less lazy, I'd probably bitch about wizard nerfs just as much as he bitches about lack of sorcerer development.

[audioserf]

Why is it every thing you touch not only turns to poison, but is inevitably derailed, and considerably more homosexual than when it started?

I'm still wondering why you haven't quit myself. Nobody likes you. Nobody respects you or your opinons. If it wasn't for roomdata, I could and would say you don't contribute anything useful to the playing community at all.

When you have your denial break, remember to slash your wrists vertically, not horizontally.

You seem rather upset

[Fallen]

I like CRB/Viril. I don't agree with everything he says, or often the way he says it. That doesn't make many of his points invalid, though.

[Warriorbird]

This particular point was invalid. Just saying.

[g++]

I dont mind CRB when I agree with him but hes a total pain in the ass when you disagree with him. Im sure he will take that as a compliment. At least hes a real person unlike half the posters now a days heh.

[Fallen]

This particular point was invalid. Just saying.

Only in how you interpret it. The argument evolved beyond its original point. You have more TP's to use than what a single level affords you. You get more than 1 level's worth of TP per level due to unconverting, but those points are evil, and we dare not speak of them. But yes, technically, you do not get more than X amount of points coming solely from the fact you leveled up.


[Number 1.0 looks at the form.]

Number 1.0: Bureaucrat Warriorbird, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct.

[pabstblueribbon]

http://tarheelmania.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/itsbusinesstime.jpg

[Warriorbird]

He's sort of like an obsessive homer in college football. I don't hate crb though.

[kookiegod]

I like CRB/Viril. I don't agree with everything he says, or often the way he says it. That doesn't make many of his points invalid, though.

^this

How I feel about most people who post (except IW and Clyde (generally)).

Make some very good points a lot, but sometimes it gets buried in the static and/or how its said.

I'm guilty of the same thing.

/shrug

~Paul

[Donquix]

^this

How I feel about most people who post (except IW and Clyde (generally)).

Make some very good points a lot, but sometimes it gets buried in the static and/or how its said.

I'm guilty of the same thing.

/shrug

~Paul

You're wrong, I hate you and I hate your face

[Celephais]

[Number 1.0 looks at the form.]

Number 1.0: Bureaucrat Warriorbird, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct.

I love that line ... now I must requisition me a beat.

[Donquix]

I love that line ... now I must requisition me a beat.

Don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation is in.

We kept it gray.

[AndrewSquared]

NECRO!!

Because old threads can often provide amusement.

Will need to check back in a year to see if more amusement is justified.

Caveat: I think TOR will be crap.


Well FFXIV started development about 24 months ago. Bioware's Starwars TOR started development about 54 months (that's 4 and a half years) ago.

FFXIV launches in 11 days.
Where's TOR?

So if you wanted to buy an engine to make a game... which would you choose?

[Asha]

what the fuck just happened

[subzero]

what the fuck just happened


¡¡FAIL!!

[Deathravin]

TOR's pushed several times now. The rumors are that the engine can't handle any type of worthwhile server load. They currently have no release date.

FFXIV I couldn't play (My laptop had a seizure when I tried, and I didn't have the time), and the people who I heard played it said it didn't have nearly the depth FFXI did.

FFXIV went too fast, and had a sub-par game
TOR has a very fantastic game (from what I've seen, but what I saw of FFXIV was fantastic before it was released too), and has pushed itself back into no estimated time of release.

Either way, the point was simply that Simu can't make a worthwhile, finished product, and their tag line "MMO Development at the speed of light!" is frustratingly inaccurate.

[AndrewSquared]

Not disagreeing.

The humor of the complete disaster that FFXIV turned out to be still makes me giggle. Have they started charging a monthly sub for it yet? Or is it still for free?

Edit: BioWare has said they will release this year for sure, but no hard date. Whether that really happens, we'll see. I think the game will be complete shite as far as virtual worlds go, but will probably be a very decent online single player MMO.

[Tolwynn]

Give Faxion a whirl if you want to see the power of Hero Engine.