Genesis Forums

Back to main topic:
I have a question about beta testers.
Who were they?
Only current members of Morgul mages guild?
Or also people who would oppose them?

If there were only mages, wasn't the feedback one-sided?

zar wrote:Back to main topic:
I have a question about beta testers.
Who were they?
Only current members of Morgul mages guild?
Or also people who would oppose them?

If there were only mages, wasn't the feedback one-sided?

Did you miss the invitation post?

Re: the recode and beta test:

The test was with the existing members, Eowul and at least Gorboth and Petros. There may have been other wizards behind the scenes, I don't know.

I'll give my 2 cents as a player OOC about it:

The recode was universally a nerf versus the old build - Lower DPS, removal of the lay guild slot, nerfed supporting spells, loss of attack modes, removal of some abilities which help in teams.

The guild is implemented as undeads - being undead has some plusses and some minuses. We saw the minuses as major because of how the game has been played all along (certain things don't work to your benefit any more). It required a bunch of re-learning. I don't know how public the undead plusses and minuses are, so I won't go into them but there are definitely tradeoffs here.

The guild became more thematic and consistent.

There were a couple hugely thematic abilities that were denied due to balance issues. This was a sore spot because they were exactly the kinds of things one would expect the guild to have.

Guild play is now decidedly more magic-user like. If you haven't been a mage, this might be harder to grasp, but as an example, normally you would spend all your killing time in two modes: lay fighter for 90% with occasional bursts, or major component usage to nuke non-stop. Nuking non-stop isn't really balanced and this is no longer possible. As a magic user (or at least a mage) you stand around a lot to recharge to fight again. Universally players don't like this and its a really sore spot for people who like to play - its a lot of idle time. But, it is more correct. Also, it required almost all players to re-spec their chars as the stat requirements shifted (effectively wis is much more important now).

Technically, the guild was reimplemented to use standard services. I obviously don't have any first hand knowledge of this, but as an engineer it is attractive. The guild abilities are standardized (as opposed to be specially coded) so it adheres to the rules of the underlying system, adhering parameters set in the 'core'.

It is a huge change from the previous world. We lost some people because of it, but I think its fair to say that anyone who gave it a chance has grown to like it.

I am also deliberately leaving out the more major weaknesses because I'd prefer the fewest number of people possible know about them

Kiara wrote:Just to clarify, I am not "against mages" in general. Not at all. But when we're talking guild power and PVP abilities its hard not to use mages as your example. For obvious reasons. But I of course think ALL guilds should be balanced both in power and PVP, no matter if its mages, ogres, kenders or calians, and no matter how they chose to RP, or whatever rules the guild has.

Chanele summed it up nicely - Keep balance to numbers.

Balance is based on a global balance document drafted by Gorboth a few years ago. It is a vision of how guilds will be balanced against each other in a paper/rock/scissor scheme. There is no RP element to any balance that we do, as that cannot be quantified. Every balance review for guilds goes back to that vision document to see how we are progressing against it.

What is implicit in the above is that balance isn't necessarily that two people of different guilds will always be balanced against each other. Paper will always be cut by scissor. A simple example would be that an undead will most likely lose against an undead hunter, all else being equal. That undead hunter may lose against non-undeads, all else being equal.

Petros: Does that mean the new occupational worshipper is going to be these "undead hunters", or is the plan to use yet to be coded items and resistances etc, to turn any people into "undead hunters"?

Currently it seems like (SEEMS being the keyword), that we have tons of papers, and one pair of scissors who can cut them all up, and no rocks...?

Kiara wrote:Petros: Does that mean the new occupational worshipper is going to be these "undead hunters", or is the plan to use yet to be coded items and resistances etc, to turn any people into "undead hunters"?

Currently it seems like (SEEMS being the keyword), that we have tons of papers, and one pair of scissors who can cut them all up, and no rocks...?

Undead and magic are separate orthogonal topics. Resistances will be available through layman magic guilds, improved items, maybe even implementation of natural resistance through stats (just as dex grants natural AC, it makes sense for wis/int to grant some level of resistance). An anti-undead guild already exists in SCoP. Part of that role will be played by members of the Elemental Clerics who choose Psuchae once the Elemental Clerics are done.

Okay. Yeah I knew about Scops, didnt know if anything similar would be in the new guild though. But thats good to know.

So theoretically, for this model to work, the "new scops" should as deadly to mages, as mages are to normal mortals. I understand correctly?

Kiara wrote:Okay. Yeah I knew about Scops, didnt know if anything similar would be in the new guild though. But thats good to know.

So theoretically, for this model to work, the "new scops" should as deadly to mages, as mages are to normal mortals. I understand correctly?

"all else being equal" is the key phrase here. When your say "deadly to mages", it still doesn't mean an i-win button. It simply means that there's an advantage. In an evenly matched battle, the chance of victory is supposed to be 50/50. In a situation where you have an advantage, that might be 60/40 or 70/30. Equipment can still make a big difference in the final result, and nothing is a foregone conclusion.

petros wrote:

Kiara wrote:Okay. Yeah I knew about Scops, didnt know if anything similar would be in the new guild though. But thats good to know.

So theoretically, for this model to work, the "new scops" should as deadly to mages, as mages are to normal mortals. I understand correctly?

"all else being equal" is the key phrase here. When your say "deadly to mages", it still doesn't mean an i-win button. It simply means that there's an advantage. In an evenly matched battle, the chance of victory is supposed to be 50/50. In a situation where you have an advantage, that might be 60/40 or 70/30. Equipment can still make a big difference in the final result, and nothing is a foregone conclusion.

forgive me for not "surrendering" on this... but I am still not satisfied with the answer:P

Gorboth said a mage will ALWAYS beat a fighter in 1 to 1 combat. All other things equal. Always. Which makes sense in rock paper scissors. But rocks also always beats scissors... doesnt they?

Shouldnt undead hunters always beat undeads? All else being equal. And have the same advantage as a mage has over a fighter?

From what you're describing the idea is:

Scissors beat paper. (mages beat fighters)
Papers beats rock. (fighters beat undead hunters)
But rock doesnt beat scissors, it's 50-50? (mage and undead hunters wins 50% each in an evenly matched battle).

Shouldnt it be more like:
If you're a fighter and want to kill a mage, you need to enlist the help of an undead hunter. And for a mage, to kill an undead hunter, you need the help of a fighter.

Isnt that the whole idea of rock, paper, scissor balancing?

Pff...we can't be defeated by some pesky scop.

*tease