Would it be possible to have commune fail, but not reset its timer if used in a non-natural room? The distinction between natural rooms and non-natural rooms is non obvious in this game. Ideally, the skill would fail with a message like: "It is impossible to concentrate on nature with all of the man made distractions" but not make the character wait before attempting to commune again.

Fix Mend?

Personally for Warriors i would like to see a special type of regen myself. Warriors are the only class in the game that cannot without serious prep, reduce downtime. Every other tank class has recup, charmies etc. My idea is pretty simple. Boost sleep. Or allow a warrior skill that effects sleep and regen. Sleep is dangerious enough with kenders and thief mobs/players. If your smart, you can safely sleep. Maybie something like silent awareness or whatnot. Gives them +health and sleep awareness over time. Unlike barbs recup it should be scaleable with skill level.

My next idea is class specific skills via rank. Skills that you dont train. For instance, warriors could have battle boost, which would be basicly aid/herosim with perhaps +skills. Druids and or barbs could have beast master, which summons a charmie comparable in strength to a shamans spirit. Like a deer! Shamans could get a skill called commune with death which would raise skills vs undead. It would make rank chars rather unique. Do you go for the str/con/dam or the charmie or the extra hp? It would atleast make a class more customized.

Q: Dark knights need an offensive damage causing skill.

I think the point here is that if you are using a weapon other than a long blade, and in the back of the pile as a dk, you sit there and do squat, except every few rounds where you can gaze at your opponent, or possibly rescue a group member. Once you have run of our your soul leeches (which are not damage causing spells in my opinion, no tank spell is - because you lose the offensive melee damage that round...only the secondary effects of these spells make them possibly useful) you don't have a lot to do, which is pretty boring.

Since DK's are not currently overpowered (my god, a group with 2 scouts attacking multiple mobs is disgusting....), I feel these changes would make them a more popular and useful grouping class, as well as let those players feel like they have a more active role in battles. Even a very simple skill, like a modified version of kick, would be more interesting. Constantly impairing my opponents gets a bit old.

It seems to me that these dark knights, which are supposed to be martial masters if the books are any indication, do not have as much to do in combat.

Dave

Education replaces force with reason.

Just a Fraindly input.

New class: Beast Master. Kinda comparable to barb but less beefy and not main tank type. I know shamans have spirits, but the beast master could tame beasts/wildlife and at 30 some dragonkin of some kind. Could possibly give them bash. Having another bashing class could help those needed bashing slots for groups . Could give them ranged abilities, throwing axe skill or somethin. Just a thought, i know creating new skills/classes are hectic and take a very long amount of time and patience to create.

DK spell: Bladeshield. Could possibly make DKs abit more valuable as a tank. I know DKs were beefed hp wise this wipe and that they have NPP, but having a shield of swirling swords and such would be pretty sweet :p

DK skill: Shield block. I know Arctic is trying to make each class not the same, but Paladins can shield block and are good specific tanks only. Atleast DK's can kill anything without getting ripped in the long run. Plus that could also make DKs more valuable as well.

Druid spell: Natural Armor. Like the spell spiritual armor which is used alot by healers, but the druid could create armor based on its surroundings. Earthen armor, Vine Armor, Ice armor etc. etc. Each armor could give different effects. Earthen armor could be apply and -ac, vine armor could give minor wis/int and ice could give something else pretty decent :p

Well, was just giving some input. I know not all ideas are great and entered into the game, so any input would be great and not effect how i play this mud. You guys are stuck with me until my computer blows up. *knocksonwood

DKs can do lots of things in a fight. They can gaze, impair, stance (if they main, which is not as unlikely as you may think), inspire, and order their dragons around if they have had some decent training. They don't really need any direct damaging spell.

I have returned after a while about two years, and i find that dk have quests to raise in rank, maybe same for paladins?? (squire, crown, sword paladin)

Add to this the need to do quests to gain some of the skills, for example you want bash, you must meet Sir something or other which will give you a set of quests to get skill, this way removing some of the grinding up to lvl 30 and making it funner than the nowadays way of leveling.

A combat skill which engages an opponent is very important for tanks. When wandering aggroes come into a room during a fight, engaging the opponent quickly is a much better option than trying to rescue a bashed healer.

I believe DK's are the only tank without such a skill. Warriors have kick, Paladins have strike, Barbs have charge, Scouts have target and various instincts. Perhaps something like "lunge" which only works against unengaged mobs and has some sort of "first strike" bonus. Almost a cross between strike and backstab. DK's are a bit of a cross between paladins and thieves anyways.

Obiwan never told you.

Well what I'm looking for is a skill that engages then, it doesn't have to do damage. DK is maining, sees agro mob wander in, has to wait for agro mob to attack someone before being able to do anything about unless he casts an offensive spell on the mob (and loses his combat damage for the round, assuming he has one memmed) or gaze the mob and hope it gets mad at him (losing the ability to use his gaze for many ticks).

Impair has this annoying message about 'You are not fighting that person' and given what the skill seems to do, it makes sense that you have to be in combat first to use it.

edit: looks like someone else just made this point as well.

Dave

Education replaces force with reason.

Well it's true that dk are missing that but I think they are really superb in several other areas and they can afford to cast an aggressive spell (and lose a combat round) if they really have to pull a mob before needing to rescue. Impair will not be buffed any more, it's already as strong as it goes.

The problem with casting a spell is that you may run out of them and they can be disrupted easily if maining. One possibility to fix the "no engage" problem is allow drain to be attempted "early" - in which case it does no damage, resets the timer, but still engages.

DK's, like paladins and druids and mages, are a great solo class but they are kinda of lame in groups. I would think that warriors and healers should be the model for good class balance - great in groups but kinda lame soloing.

To say that a class is powerful enough soloing and so their grouping ability should not be improved seems like the wrong approach. It is the soloing which should be nerfed, not the grouping.

Obiwan never told you.

Why? It seems to me that you must be one of those bandwagon DK players that jumped on board when they were revamped last wipe. I've played DKs, with varying levels of skill, since my first wipe here. I loved their solo ability, as has almost every other DK player I've known. Your suggestion that they're less useful in groups has been heard before, and partly answered (with the exception of a certain circle 2 spell, and summon dragon, pretty much every spell and skill given by the path of the lily is geared towards increasing the DK's utility in group). I'm sure many of the DK players I know would agree that we'd love to have DKs buffed even more in group, but I doubt a single one would actually suggest you NERF THEIR SOLO ABILITY to do so, any more than a real thief player would trade in sneak/backstab for mass-unbalance, or something similarly powerful in group.

It would be nice to have something other than target or soul leech to pick up a new aggro when I'm tanking, but it would also be nice to have some wardance-like autorescue, maybe something that messes up healers more reliable like bash/absolution. But the last few wipes the goal of the mud has been to make classes more distinct, and not more similar. Thus the whole daze/hold monster changes to mages/druids. Thus, the new paladins and scouts. Thus, the more subtle changes to barbs long ago. When you really look at it, every class has a some deficiency. Barbs are next to useless when not maining, assail notwithstanding. Bashers have perhaps the second most indispensable group ability, next to heal, but they still lack solo ability as well as the hands free tanking ability of the barb. There's nothing wrong with that in my book. If you think that every tank class must have A, B, and C, and every caster class must have X, Y, and Z, otherwise they're useless, then don't play them in groups.

I think its great that you're trying to improve the DK class, but looking for every tiny niche function they're missing isn't the right way to go. And asking them to nerf solo ability is an entirely wrong way to go. Instead, see how the group leaders feel about the class. If the "lack of kick/strike-equivalent" were a huge problem for dks, group leaders would be booting them faster than a spell-less mage, but so far, they dont seem to have any trouble earning a spot in a full group.

I've played DK since they first showed up. I was a newb at the time and the class was so over-powered in solo that I could solo the Celestial Temple. Since then they have severely nerfed the solo power and increased group power. Each of these changes was for the better because it put the Multiplayer back into MUD. DK's need to keep following this trend of changes.

Even if I already had a main, I would take another barb over a DK any day in a group.

Obiwan never told you.

Why?

Zone selection.

Education replaces force with reason.

There is no conceivable reason anyone would get a second barbarian over a dk in a group ever, let alone "every day". Dks give some of the most powerful group buffs in the game, zone selection hardly matters. If you think that dks are "lame" in group you have been obviously grouping with people who barely know the class at all. If anything, they are overpowered... Even without the Lily path they can be very useful in groups, when they embrace it, raise their skills, learn their divine powers and train their dragons they are priceless. In any cases, there are no plans to further buff them up in any way other than enrich their pets abilities, which come at a cost and are eventually intended to be a core aspect of the class.

I'm not thinking of the difficulty of the zone, but of the alignment of the zone. If a zone is filled with evil mobs, a paladin might do more damage than a dk, special abilities not with-standing.

I think DKs are an excellent class and I was surprised to see them getting buffed, but I suppose this is due to a general increase in the power of various classes on the mud. I was happy to see that their hp got improved as that really hampered their ability to use one of their skills (stance - there are some rooms where you need to have 600 hp to last long to use your defensive skill).

Dave

Education replaces force with reason.

Kapis makes a good point, it can be annoying at times to pick zones around a DK or a paladin, but DKs have always been more forgiving in that regard than paladins (even though I think there are far fewer goodie mob zones than evil mob zones, since DKs only have to avoid unholies). And then there's impunity, which is a lot more user friendly than righteous indignation.

But unless there's a specific situation where I absolutely need a redundant top tier tank in the group, I'd probably go with the DK--after all, zone selection isn't just a matter of alignment issues, its also a matter of difficulty, and while its obvious that how much value a certain class contributes can vary between situations, on average a DK in the support role gives you more bang for your slot than a non-maining barb, just like on average a barb is a much better main than a DK. As for a paladin, obviously a paladin would be a bigger asset than a DK in an evil zone, but the question wasn't whether you'd take a paladin or a DK, it was whether you'd take a paladin or a non-maining barb. And in my experience, at least, even without alignment dependent bonuses, a DK brings more to the table than the barb would.

Kapis and Obiwant both make a compelling case as to why having a skill like kick or charge, that can engage an out of combat target while tanking with more reliability than target, has some great advantages over using soul leech or other current dk abilities. Unfortunately, I dont think anybody, least of all Adepali, ever said that DKs weren't at a slight disadvantage with regard to that specific aspect of combat.

Take wardance and guard. Guard has its advantages obviously, but when you consider maining, and nothing else, wardance tends to be much more effect, and both allow the main to be more effective than a warrior, who needs to stay on top of rescues. But--as evident in the lack of cries of "cheat barbs"--the general mudding public doesn't seem to see warriors or pallies as zoning invalids despite this disadvantage.

Obiwant refers to the overpowered solo days of the DK, and thinks that because nerfing them so they couldn't solo CT anymore helped things then, then logically continuing to nerf their solo capabilities now will make things even better for multiplayer. That simply doesn't make sense. Well, I stand corrected, that makes perfect sense. After all, if every class were so specialized at such very specific tasks that you couldn't solo anything harder than Hylo, obviously people would be forced to group more to get anything at all accomplished. I dont think that's good for the game at all.

Frankly, its naive to think that the capacity for soloing is a major factor in diminishing multiplayer in Arctic, or, as Obiwant claims, "Every [nerf to dk solo or buff to dk group] has put the Multiplayer back to mud." For one thing, if I DK could solo CT, then obviously it wasn't an issue of poor solo/group inbalance, but a matter of hideous class imbalance, something common to new classes.

If you want to bring multiplayer back into mud, don't try to do it by tweaking the classes. Do it by not being a complete dick to newbies trying to whet their teeth for the first time in a group. Do it by not regarding every unknown neutral as an "evil spy" waiting to get you--and by the same token, not pretending to be a newbie to try to catch another clan with its pants down. Let neutrals into your groups when you have space so they can learn something, or if you are a neutral, don't be a whiny baby if someone wants to explore a new zone so that they can do it without some clan leading them around.

I've zoned with a lot of newer players, and when I ask them about their problems zoning, the problem is usually something like this--nobody can or wants to lead, everyone they know is already committed to a ten man, no healers around, or nobody wants them because they're too low or unspelled. It's usually not an issue of everyone playing a DK and going soloing because they feel useless in group.

With the exception of the inexperienced players who want to be mages but can't even pop themselves the basic soloable books, multiplayer hasn't suffered because at all because too many people are playing "useless" classes.

Clearly the big imm, and a decent number of leaders other than Obiwant, think DKs pull their weight well enough in groups, despite not being an ideal main (and even if they have shortcomings, they're still pretty good at the job). A newbie might end up committing to a class and being at a grouping disadvantage because of it (I refer you to the point about mages), but beyond that point, people will pick classes based on both what is fun and what they want to do in group. Someone who intends to tank all the time wont play a dk as their main alt, no more than a guy who wants to bring massive area would play a shaman, or someone who wants to just type assist and afk would play a barb.

While I agree that if every class could solo four man zones, multiplayer would suffer, at some point you have to allow a bit of fun and variety into the game. I would venture so far to say that your line of reasoning to it end ("Okay, so every tank class needs X skill--bashers kick, check, barbs charge, check, paladins strike, check...") would ultimately hurt multiplayer, by bringing us back to the early days where we had four classes--thief, tank, healer, fragger--wearing a dozen or so hats, we'll just kill multiplayer zoning by making it boring again.

I wish i could get MORE dk's in zones, there really aren't enough good dk's out there STOP PLAYING THOSE (Insert foul word here) SCOUTS! I want bashes and I want impair, you keep your stupid pirahnas and ravage flirting with mobs to yourself.

Shamans: Too Buff? Need Nerf?

I don't think so but they may need some small tweeks.

First off they hate undead.... The only undead killing spell or skill is not worth using for obvious reasons. Since they hate undead maybe switch spell to skill... A damage skill only for undead? A divine spell to eh kill undead? The undead spell being worth memming (AOE?). Evil clerics are better at killing undead and they LOVES them. (Evil cleric is supposed to charm with turn). Hell paladin better.

Make clot a skill, not spell (usable like, say, scout instinct). Perhaps tweak a certain zone so that the skill/spell works when some mob like tries to scratch your eyes out and you left bleeding. (not important but attention to detail is always a lovely thing).

Make a skill with a recharge period that cures (similar to stupefy for recharge period and cure crit for healing purposes).

These ideas aren't vastly important and I wish I could have brought these up before implementation of the class because I think they are good ideas and you're probably already working on something else.

Now the three shaman skills that are nice are the spells that no one casts because they are too wasteful on mem but now useful enough to use (or more so then earlier counterparts that were spells). I am speaking of Stupeify Spook, and hex, are something to consider for mages. Damaging skills that don't require decades of mem (for those that don't relo or zones that don't allow it). Someone mentioned cantrip or perhaps a magefire skill (silvery flame that DOESNT FRAG). Makeing a certain spell at circle 8 a skill (like field medic) IN ADDITION to these other things would go a long way to making the nuetral mage significantly group useful (fireball helped though). Of course they do have a use and a poof cannon but the hps make the useless in many fights. Gotta asign a healer to them in a couple fights!

I must have misunderstood the following response:

If the imms say that an offensive damage causing skill makes them too overpowered, I have no issue with that. They are the experts on balance, not I. But based on the response of soul-leech I got the impression that they were saying that DK's were dismissing that aspect of tanking.

It still strikes me as odd that they are the only tank that does not have this ability.

Obiwan never told you.

Yes Obiwant, you did misunderstand completely.

The request was, "DK's need an offensive damage causing skill." Adepali's response was that he felt the spell was all they needed. The idea said nothing about, "DKs are at a disadvantage in tanking because they don't have a reusable skill to engage wanderers while tanking," "DKs need a way to add damage that doesn't take away their melee attacks for a round," "DKs are screwed in major fights where you'll disrupt or run out of soul leeches before you engage every mob you need," all of which are valid assessments of DK deficiencies, none of which were mentioned in the post Adepali was responding to.

That, or I misunderstood completely, and I guess what Obiwan never told us was that the Xeno has precognitive or telepathic abilities, and that his response in the original post--one response out of many in a long post-- should be considered not only a response to that specific statement, but also a preemptive response to the points later made in later posts, as well as what the author of the original idea was thinking when he hit the idea command, but didn't actually put into words. In which case yes, I think Adepali's post was preemptively and/or psychically dismissing a lot of valid points, and I stand corrected.

[More seriously, I can see why you interpreted his rather terse response as possibly indicating that he was simply too dense to see why skill has advantages over spell damage, my only point was even after he acknowledged and addressed that point, you guys kept at that poor dead horse, I didn't have any animates memmed, and it was needlessly detracting from what I think was a great discussion on the abilities and the future of DKs.]

However, based on my extensive survey of Greeks (two) who mud, evidence seems indicate they mostly aren't psychic (zero out of two), so my guess is... well, I don't really presume to have any clue, lacking the gift of divine sight myself, but it seems like there could be many possible reasons behind "DKs need a damage skill," ranging from concern over tanking ability, the belief that DKs simply need to do more damage, or have more stoneskin breaking damage, or just thinking it would be damn cool, and since the original idea wasn't more explicit as to why, it seems, well, kind of stupid and unreasonable to expect anyone to think up and shoot down every individual reason that favors said idea, when the original poster didn't even bother taking the time to justify his post. That's the whole point of the forum--new points come up, and people respond to them.

Honestly, if I were the cynical type, I would almost think that you were deliberately ignoring this later post by Adepali

"Well it's true that dk are missing that but I think they are really superb in several other areas and they can afford to cast an aggressive spell (and lose a combat round) if they really have to pull a mob before needing to rescue. Impair will not be buffed any more, it's already as strong as it goes."

where, just like I said, he was acknowledging the deficiency but stating his opinion that its balanced by other strengths, and deliberately going back to an outdated post in order to try to score a cheap rhetorical point?

Speaking of misunderstandings, what did you mean by "But based on the response of soul-leech I got the impression that they were saying that DK's were dismissing that aspect of tanking." Are you saying that based on Adepali's response, all dks dismiss the usefulness of a strike-like ability to engage mobs essentially for free? Speaking for myself and the other dks I know, we don't--we accept it as part of the class, and compensate accordingly; however, I fail to see how an imms response in any way indicates how we're feeling. To me, it seems like all he is saying is that in the grand scheme of class balances, soul leech (and now target) is enough to get the job done.