Draugor wrote:Suppose we'll see tons of valars in Mithas, and only mithas then Not like they are usefull anywhere else for the big ones. Hell not even alot of small grinders that are outdoors
My point exactly.
Draugor wrote:Suppose we'll see tons of valars in Mithas, and only mithas then Not like they are usefull anywhere else for the big ones. Hell not even alot of small grinders that are outdoors
Well the issue would be this, if you cant mount in the good grinders, you cant use it, so that leaves mithas as I highly doubt that valars will be running Quali Most good grinders are indoors, plains? Well unless the other side plays the plainsgame you can only grind your own mobs, and the reward aint that uber tbh from plains. For now atleast I know you're cooking something weird up regarding them.Arman wrote:
Seeing I recoded the Heralds I can tell you. Lots of reasons.
Lore and thematics are a big one. Read your help files... it isn't your speed you are boosting, its your mount. Also potentially being the best quickness spell in the game it needs a catch. Power vs convenience.
Ody wrote:Simple fix: If you did it for thematics than keep it cast on the horse, but don't make it break when you dismount. Sure. Make it only a boost when mounted, but keep the spell going when you dismount. Otherwise you're going to burn through components pointlessly.
This. I get the thematics, and enjoy it. But if its caste on the mount, then it could stay for the duration or until the steed is returned/dismissed. The limits on where horses can go are already a cost for power. More for some, less for others.Ody wrote:Simple fix: If you did it for thematics than keep it cast on the horse, but don't make it break when you dismount. Sure. Make it only a boost when mounted, but keep the spell going when you dismount. Otherwise you're going to burn through components pointlessly.
If that is the case, and a good case needs to be brought to my attention, then this is something that I will take action to address. For magic guilds, there are a number of key principles that need to be met. I don't know if I have publicly raised it before, but i'll articulate it here so you understand my position:Greneth wrote:
The issue becomes he has she has and EW set the bar so high that anything else fails to measure up. I look at Warlocks now and it's costing people platinum coins left and right while an EW spell component is extremely common and littered all over the moors right next to their guild hall for the same spell.
I love factual comparisons. Especially when I hold all the guild data. Having said that, mortals have an ingenious habit of getting around intended restrictions. So again, bring anything you think breaks the principles i've outlined above to my attention.Greneth wrote: So while I agree with your line of thinking that drawbacks should be in place it's really hard to justify as long as one of the most controversial magical laymans for over the past decade has literally had none. And that's not crying it's just a simple factual comparison.
Sorry, lore and thematics are king. We are a game of narrative, not min/maxxing. There are boundaries which I police... but while we have a Keeper who pushes those boundaries with everything he creates (which I love) that is always going to trump equalisation. Agreed, usability and mechanics are very important... but you have to be understanding that there are 30 year old foundational elements to the game that would be incredibly time consuming (if at all possible) to change. Lengths of weapons vs character race height type? Yeah we get that. There are just some elements of the game that we just have to accept as idiosyncrasies of one of the oldest online games in the world. You can't get bogged down in some of these discrepancies *Arman whispers 'let it go'*.Greneth wrote: The other issue is much the same when you use lore as an argument in a game that is not roleplay enforced, has things like Morgul Mages? Dragon Armies that are restricted to one weapon type, Angmar Armies that are tanks which can only move behind other tanks, Gladiators that only know how to use axes, Hobbits tanking Dragons and slaying them with weapons such as Wyrmslayer that is about twice as long as them while wearing a deathplate that somehow now fits them from a giant Death Knight... I mean you can go on and on with the discrepancies. I've no idea what the Heralds get now but I agree with Amberlee, usability and mechanics should always come first and the lore wrapped around it to give it flavor.
It isn't a simple fix. It is a messy code fix. But i'll see what can be done.Ody wrote:Simple fix: If you did it for thematics than keep it cast on the horse, but don't make it break when you dismount. Sure. Make it only a boost when mounted, but keep the spell going when you dismount. Otherwise you're going to burn through components pointlessly.
What I see here happening for a few years now is a very active and dedicated wizard willing to take on an immense amount of work onto himself both code and lorewise, with a bunch of other responsibilities on top of that. We're talking about code no one has wanted to do, ever. He's giving explanations of his actions, examples, and agreeing on the well made points we make. We're seeing more unbiased wizard activity in one person than we have seen in a while, and when bombarded with the usual complaints he's being very civil and open where he could just say "Deal with it", as other wizards have done in the past. All of it for free. So, I'd really suggest building up on that relationship and trying to work with him here. Trust the changes a bit and if there are issues then they should be reported in a more or less civil manner. I certainly don't understand half of these changes nor do I agree with every one he has made, but I recognize quality code being done here, and a solid, even if improvable, reasoning behind it. As a human, there are things he might overlook or seems to have overlooked, and that's something we can definitely focus on. All I'm saying is that the current team of active wizards for the last few years have been doing a lot of work that has long been awaited. If we try to get as much done as possible and work out the kinks as a community, we might just be able to get what the community has wanted for a long time: options, lore rich guilds, a degree of transparency, more communication, less nepotism, more immersion, a ranger recode, etc.Arman wrote: I am not sure what you mean on your point about the Morgul Mages, although they fit within the principles of magic guilds outlined above as well as combat aid limits. Having said that, as someone who remembers what the original Morgul Mages were, I don't really like the recode. Morgul Mages are on my radar for a recode... and I am talking blank slate recode in collaboration with the guild leadership. Discussions have commenced, but don't expect anything soon... rangers have priority before MMs.
Agree with you re: Dragonarmies and the singular weapon option use. I hope to address that issue when I release the recode of the Krynn warfare system. As i've flagged in my yearly update as liege of Krynn, the warfare system is something I think is very important to reinvigorate, and was my focus post opening of the WoHS.