An interesting idea, even though I'm not sure if putting more efforts into sheafs is worth the trouble. Anyway, if the feature is ever implemented, I'd prefer to to see it as an oaffect:

Affects: SHEAF_MOD by 1
(reduces the number of spells going to a sheaf by 1)
or
Affects: SHEAF_MOD by 20%
(reduces the number of spells going to a sheaf by 20%)

Certainly, an oaffect such as this may be also made available via a rank.

As to the IMMUNE_SHEAF flag, it is likely to end up becoming yet another 25 rp feature that no one ever buys (or a limit 1 cyan item that stays the entire wipe on the same clan leader's mage).

I think sheafs could be removed if casters had more offensive gear options, but currently spells are the only things that casters get to improved damage. In a zoning group there is virtually no difference between a naked mage and a geared out mage, except the geared mage will have a few more hp. So if a group is exploring a new zone, naked casters risk very little in a system without sheafs, while other classes pretty much have to risk gear if they want to contribute to the group.

I'd personally like to see more +spell_damage, -opponent_spell_save, +caster_level, etc gear- stuff that casters would want that would increase their damage, and if such gear was more available, on par with current +damroll and +hitroll gear, moreso on weapons, then casters would be required to risk a little bit of gear if they want to add effective damage to a group and pull their own weight. But until we get to that point, I think sheafs are still necessary.

It is a great value of a caster that they do not rely so heavily on gear. Massive nerfing of current casters to implement the gear you are asking for, I believe, is a terrible idea. Plenty of mages and druids wander around nude with out random pking, and this is not the group that we want to punish.

Gear that does what you ask for exists, but it is meant for the highest end of the group.

Don't tell me how to do it; it sickens me.

Let me remind you that you can scribe your spells in the special scrolls sold in most component shops, keep the scroll in your vault and study it when you lose the spell to a sheaf. See help skill scribe for more details. You may argue that this is a massive hassle, but that's an option for those willing to give it a try.

Well of course it is. I'm sure every class would love to be able to run around naked and operate at 95% effectiveness. It doesn't make it good game design.

I don't think anything needs to be nerfed. From my understanding, at the high end casters aren't really brought to major fights all that much as it is. Low hp and limited damage means they are just a liability. Sure, a group might take 1 druid or mage if they are a good player, but if they need to do a serious fight the leader will ask casters to sit out so "more bashers" or something similar can be brought in.

Actually Terk, i agree that its stupid for the end game of mages to be like that, but if you take a look at why mages go naked, and why its fun to play aless eq dependant classs, they either A) are visious evil random or clan pkers, and will die and simply go back to relo spraying groups, B) they dont want to rent alot, and dont plan on playing arctic all the time or daily. or C) there explorers and they expect to die alot. You elimated A and C. B there arnt alot of. Chert told me and the help file says, that mages are made to be played by the elite. I find that new and retarded. I think anyone should be able to play any class poorly and not be punished for it. I also think, after watching Xison get hammed 3 times in a row, that it's not really skill. Anyone can zone jump you, you can have an off night, you can be tired and it can be 4am.

Adepali, i know every brew and scribe in the game atm. I even know how to back up every mage and druid spell. Well ithink i'm missing 4-5. I have collected components for atleast 3-4 weeks. I have done high zones and mid zones and low zones and stand alone mobs. To back up the bigger spells, the spells you honestly WANT to back up, it's easier to repop the book. Yes this is even after you drasticly lowered the amount of components needed. The biggest problem is that the last two tier components simply do not load. They are so rare as is, and even IF you get them, your not guarented to get the ones you want to get. In 2 weeks of gathering i can back up color spray, calm, conjure elemental, and a few other guild spells. Thats pointless, who needs a guild spell backed up? I haven't even tried to do it. I think it would work alot better to make the backups cost less then the normal brew and scribes. Like make it so that someone can legitamately back up there spell book solo or in a small group. BTW i love the alchemy quest so far.

If you want to keep sheafs in, allow us to rent books, or better yet make an atonement quest like for a dk/pally, where you get all the spells you lost. I think prism is far to hard to get now and pws is not even in the game it seems, that there virtually unobtainable for clan trash mages. Even good spelled up mages, with elite eq and a good zoning clan can't seem to pop it, reguardless oof spaming the zone.That or not. I hate the fact that i cant explore with it without losing all my gear and 4 spells.

I know it's still hard to scribe the high spells. The main problem is a balance between making the skill worthless, as it was before the latest changes, or too buff in pk, as it was before the nerf. I had the same idea with you, lowering the requirements for scribing them in sheaf-scrolls... I'm still considering the details. Among the rewards of the alchemy quest is the ability to buy one unique high power component of any sphere at a special shop, which will obviously reduce the requirements to scribe/brew high level spells. Naturally, only people who have finished the quest will be able to use these components. Furthermore, two days ago I changed some specs so that they can now load components of certain power/sphere. Now I'm thinking of where to place them, but the idea is that some quests / special mobs etc will have a higher chance of loading high/exceptional components than the normal random loot algorithm. Any idea that will help expand the system is appreciated, but keep in mind that it must not break the pk system.

One very small minor tiny suggestion that might make the sheaf system a little less painful.

Can you make it so that once a caster learns a spell, if he loses it later his chance to relearn it is 100%?

As I said above I am against the removal of sheafs, because I think it's only fair that casters risk loss just the same as other classes. But a tank that loses his elite gear can always someday get it back. A caster that loses several crucial spells and through bad luck fails to relearn them is crippled for a much longer time, until they can re-rank and clear the failures, which may never happen if they were of an very high rank already and they lost multiple spells through failing.

Without going into too much detail, I'll just say that for anyone not involved in active clan warfare (or being hunted for being a randomer) will be very unlikely to fail a spell lost to sheafing.

Doesn't make it bad game design either.

As long as casters, or any other given class, aren't overpowered enough to mess up the fun of other classes, (massive pk or solo inbalance or something), I don't see the problem they pose by existing, other than offending Drakantus' sensibilities and the WoW ideas of good game play. Trash casters with good spells presented a real problem to game play, and sheafing did a lot to solve that problem.

It's not like people are randomly forced to play a given class, they play what they want. People who play mages may want a utility character, a casual gaming experience where they can ignore a decay or two without feeling like its the end of the world, or to possibly throw their hats into the ring and compete for the top-tier spells and equipment that marks the elite casters of the wipe.

If you want a smooth, progressive experience where x effort always leads to nx payback, there are a lot of great classes that offer precisely that experience, but without the benefit of having as many tangible zoning rewards that can't be decayed just from taking a vacation (spells). If you want that benefit of being "95% effective" while "running around naked," there must be a trade off, and if that trade off is that your baseline for 100% is lacking compared to the more gear dependent classes, I don't see a problem with it. If you feel this makes the class underpowered and the game poorly designed, then don't play the class--despite the dismissal of non-elite caster players in your other thread as either naked trash randomers or too dumb to know better, there are a lot of legitimate, non-elite caster players who love playing the caster classes for their own, various reasons, despite the fact that they might not get invited to nail Soth or Cyan too often. Call me hopelessly democratic, but I think should be able to do so.

And even if you ignore those non-dps benefits as you're prone to do, what's the harm in having a couple of classes that don't stack up to the rest? If one or two classes like, hypothetically speaking, healers and bashers, were overpowered, it might diminish the diversity of the game play by devaluing every other class in the game, but even if one or two classes were objectively underpowered, the only harm it would do is push people away from those classes, leaving fairly free competition between the 8 more evenly balanced classes (and counting). If essentially nobody plays that class, then it should be revamped, but if there are still a lot of people who enjoy that class, then you need to keep the unique appeal and character of that class in mind before you do anything. If you can bring the class up to par without compromising what draws its current fanbase, great.

Otherwise, why deliberately alienate the segment of the playerbase who likes druids and mages as they are, in order to give them the exact same sort of appeal as several existing classes? If all you care about is damage rate and "equipment scaling", you have scouts, dks, paladins. If you like area and equipment scaling, you have sky scouts. If it really means that much to you to be able to shout, "I'm [insert class here], I cast spells!" why not just implement a new class altogether, a highly equipment dependent casting class with its own unique appeal? DragonLance mythology has grey robed mages, necromancers, plenty of opportunities to write in a new spellcaster class for the game. If many people still see merit in caster-character as it stands now, those classes will still be played, and any revamps will make them better without changing the essence of the class. If it never appealed to enough people in the first place, or people can find pretty much the exact same thing in another class (i.e., original paladins), then opinion will reflect this, and on the next revamp the class will be changed into something completely new.

Just like the point I made in another thread--a caster of any type really needs to be a good player, while any trained monkey with a basher can be useful :P

Maybe "very unlikely" is acceptable to you, for me it's not.

Arctic's router is a particular example, if it decides to mess up and lag everyone off the game in the middle of a zone that can easily lead to an un-CRable death for a caster.

There are plenty of situations where a caster can lose his/her sheath, and through amazing bad luck or just poor timing (for example, finding the book for a spell that was lost the day after DTing, with no +learn/int gear to use while studying) a player might fail one of those spells.

Drakantus, I won't go into more detail over the boards, but I wasn't refering to the likelihood of losing your sheaf, but rather the likelihood of failing the spell after you have already lost it.

Yeah sure. Why not make a class the levels based on coins, instead of xp. I'm sure a lot of players would enjoy that as well. If you don't like the idea, you can choose not to play the class, easy enough right? Or how about a class that gains xp on death instead of losing it? That would be fair, because everyone could choose to play the class or not play it, right?

I don't know why you keep bringing up WoW. This is about arctic.

I don't really think your logic follows. People were playing rangers when they got revamped. Tons of people were playing the old paladins before they were revamped. People are "playing" thieves now- they just log on for 3 minutes, get summoned, pick a lock, and then recall and rent- but people are playing them, sure.

If a class is broken, it should be fixed. People playing a class does not prove it's not broken.

I don't. I want a sensible game. If class X, at level 20, is primarily a dps class, then it just makes sense to me that it should still be a valid dps class at 30 rank 20. Heck, I'd even be perfectly acceptable if a class was really designed to change roles at 30, it might be fun to play such a class, but it doesn't look like that at all. It just looks like... what a funny coincidence, all the classes that use spells for damage "change roles" at 30. That doesn't look like a coincidence at all... it looks like a broken game.

Let me turn this around a bit. Even if +spelldmg stats of some sort were added, players who don't like the idea wouldn't be forced to wear such gear. They could still wear +int and +learn and +hp gear all the time, if they so choose.

What would be the harm in adding a new option for players who *want* to play casters as a dps class?

Well for one thing, it shifts the balance of the class. Right now spell_damage and spell_power are relatively elite, and the classes are balanced accordingly. You feel casters are underpowered enough that they don't need to a big nerf in order to implement the gear change you propose. Others, including Terk and Adepali, feel that the classes are currently powerful enough that having as many +20% spell_damage mages or druids as you have +3-5 damage tanks would be too powerful, which means that if your gear situation were implemented, then caster damage would have to be nerfed to a level the imms feel is appropriate. And this, of course, means that the people who like casters as they are will have to change their equipment make up slightly just to break even.

I already suggested that--new caster class, with lower starting damage, higher load rates on directly damage enhancing gear. Simply adding the equipment and adding the that option isn't a possibility--either the class will have to be nerfed in other areas (harm) or become overpowered (harm).

But really, these players don't seem to want to play an Arctic caster class, they want to play a WoW caster, or at the very least the mud version of the equipment dependent damage machine that types cast instead of assist.

Can't have it both ways. If casters dealing 4X melee damage is overpowered, then all level 8-29 casters are overpowered. Why don't they need to be nerfed?

Drakantus you seem to be too angry about druids suckness, yet your highest level druid is not even 25... Even though I read all your arguments and I'm trying to keep an eye on all player suggestions, but try to think of other people's arguments for a while instead of lashing back. In any case, I have already mentioned several times that a) druids are on the top of our revamp priority list, and b) we don't think that damage output is the measure that all classes should be judged by. If you think about it you will realize that your argument more damage = faster kill = better is valid only in some scenarios and invalid in the toughest fights, where you have to stay alive long enough to deal that extra damage.

Drakantus, you're right, leveling on coins instead of exp would be a fun class. It'll also never happen because its never been in Arctic before, and there isn't anyone on staff who really wants the idea, at least not one articulate enough to persuade the rest of them. In contrast, casters as a less gear dependent class has always been in Arctic, and the current overlord likes that principle.

Actually, my logic is perfect. I never said that "if people play it, you shouldn't fix it." I never said they should simply look at character counts without consideration for how often they're played (you and I are forced to, given the limited access to information mortals have, but an imm doesn't need to simply ask how many level X druids there are, because he can actually see how actively their played).

I said, well, the quote is up there, but again, its that if people play it, you should think, and consider why they play it before you act. In your prior posts, you were rather dismissive of the current caster players, the whole premise of caster as not being too gear dependent at the casual-play level, and even the idea of any sort of democracy in terms of deciding how the game should be. The idea of precise damage balance is a solid foundation on which to build a game, and its a great way to guarantee a balanced game without having to do too much critical or creative thinking--and if the imms had that idea as a top priority, then they should ultimately implement it despite what the current players may want. However, they clearly don't agree with you on the importance of that idea. If anything, their actions regarding rangers and paladins showed this.

Original paladins were a powerful class--all the power of the basher's single most important skill, plus some other shiny tricks. Bash and hold in PK, buff as hell! Rangers, just assist and triple oblit, pretty huge. People liked playing them for those and various other reasons, so I'm sure the imms looked into why pretty carefully before they made the revamp. But, from the combination of staff comments and a bit of my own guessing, there were several reasons why the changes went through. First of all, the immortals wanted classes to be more distinct than simply having different accessories added to basher chassis--an idea that seems more in line with my arguments than yours. Secondly, and related to the first, when you look at why people played paladins or rangers, it was either for bashing ability, high damage, or the shininess of being a paladin/ranger and having their various shiny spells and class skills, and after the revamps, all of those needs were satisfied by the warrior class, or the revamped paladin or scouts. Well, being able to cause massive damage while doing nothing but hitting assist was a nice thing, too, and one that wasn't replaced somehow after the revamp, but honestly, even those players who went with rangers for the sake of their damage potential didn't like not having much to do once engaged. Finally, during the testing phase, there was a big positive response to templar and scouts, and both proved their usefulness in zoning.

As you say, if a class is broken, it needs to be fixed. However, ultimately, broken is in the eye of the guys in charge--all I have stated is that its in the game's best interest for them to not only look at the numbers, but also to try to listen to the players, and understand why the numbers are what they are, before committing themselves completely to a given course of action. For paladins and rangers, the imms saw people were playing the class, tried to figure out why they were playing the class, and after weighing it against their own ideas for Arctic's future, went ahead with the changes, which were received well. For druids and mages--well, they're definitely on the way to a much deserved update, but clearly the imms have discussed their ideas for the future of the classes, listened to what the player base wants, including you... and decided not to go with your idea. If you feel that their course of action is perpetuating a "broken" class, then I guess your options are avoid playing the class if you think its only bad within itself, stop playing the game if you think the class messes things up for everyone, and of course try to convince the staff in a far more persuasive manner than you have been.

Hehe, hey Drakantus, you must be getting really tired, eh? You're the one who said they didn't need a nerf, not me!

Drakantus

The classes that you term as underpowered are regularly the most powerful in the game. Can we put this argument to bed already?

Thieves are a fantastic class that few people can play well, but those who do play them well are often some of the most feared single players in the game. Not to mention what a thief can do in a small group environment can be simply stunning. A mage this wipe, Eclipz, may have at one point been the most powerful char ever seen on Arctic. Ask the leader of MAEL if he thinks druids are entirely useless.

I know you are trying to quantitatively measure the value of each of arctic's classes. This is stupid, because you obviously don't know nearly enough about the game. Many zones have been made with specific plays on specific skills that exist. When people say that things in arctic cannot be defined purely by dps this is true, because there are MANY ways to change dps output.

At the high end game (lvl 28+), which I realize you probably have never been a part of. DPS means almost dick if you can't keep people alive. Damage mitigation is huge. Druids and mages control the two-four most effective damage mitigation spells in the game. Secondly, they also can do the most damage in a single room. Thirdly, at the high end they have access to the BEST gear in the game.

Notably, you are entirely ignoring pk. A lot of reason the best players in the game choose these "underpowered" classes, is because they are by far the most awesome in pk as well.

Honestly, as far as sheafs go, I think they were AN EXCELLENT trade off for the 5-6x more common load rates on books. So while sheafs maybe altered later, I think this thread has successfully been beaten to death. Discuss something else on another thread.

Don't tell me how to do it; it sickens me.

Okay, this will be my last post because Terk wants this thread to be over.

If you have looked at all my characters, you should also see that I have 2 level 30 warriors. What does it tell you when I am willing to take the time to level 2 different warriors to 30, but not even one druid? I started the druid because they were a fun class 6 years ago. After leveling it up to mid levels I realized it was pointless and gave up. Maybe if I am bored I'll finish leveling it up to 30, but there isn't much reason to when my warrior can deal more damage, take more damage, serve as a tank if needed, bash if needed, and basically act as a superior character in every way.

Well, that is what really scares me. The idea that you will revamp druids and still leave them broken, because you don't think dealing damage is important. I did not say that all classes have to be measured by dps. I said if there are three roles- tanking, dps, and healing. A class that can heal doesn't need to be able to tank or dps well. I suggested in the past giving druids a limited form of heal, but aristox has repeatedly responded that druids will never get heal. Okay, so that is why I focus on damage. A class that can tank well doesn't need to be able to dps and heal well. But druids and mages can't tank, and they can't heal, so in their case dealing damage is the only thing they can do.

*hits head on desk*

Yes, I said they didn't need a nerf. That is my point. I am asking you, if druids&mages dealing more damage than warriors at rank levels is so overpowered and needs to be nerfed, why don't they need to be nerfed at mid-high levels? A mid-high mage can do 4X as much damage as an equal level warrior, and nobody says that mid-high level casters need to be nerfed. But if a ranked caster did 3X the damage of a warrior, you are saying that would become overpowered.

Please, if Adepali can look at my chars I'm sure you can too. You might disgree with my ideas, thats fine, no need to insult me. You make arctic look bad.

In any case, I'm done with this thread. I guess Terk is right, it has been beaten to death. It's not exactly a new concept either, for example-

http://mud.arctic.org/node/728
http://mud.arctic.org/node/904
One not by me:
http://mud.arctic.org/node/956

Interesting thing to me looking at these old threads is I see a lot of players supported these sort of ideas. Now those players are gone, and arctic has 50 players online at peak times.

The great thing about warriors, is that they're a great starter character to learn. I'll zone a lot of inexperienced players when I have space, often to the frustrationg of my clanmates, and one thing I'll often tell them is that if they want to get into a lot of high end zoning while still learning about large group zoning in general, play a basher or a scout. As you say, they're tough, they don't have to worry too much about implementation to deal damage, and they can bash, so as long as I tell them "Bash master when sitting" or "Bash Feal when standing" or "dual wield for dragon," they'll be useful, and no matter what they do they probably won't be draining too many of my heals (and I have so few heals these days...) then they get to do a fun higher end zone and I get a bit of extra company and help.

With an inexperienced druid or mage, I have to hope they knew how to solo/two-man basic spells, explain exactly why its better to stone at certain times even if the damage doesn't change much, tell them in advance when to juggle their mem to favor this spell or that, not to use frags or this element on this mob, and for the love of god please don't area in this room or you will die.

See, this is what really scares me. I haven't been the only one to use the phrase "damage mitigation" or "buffs," yet its still not getting through to you that right there, you have something both COMBAT RELEVANT and NOT part of the healing/tanking/damage trio. Obviously, buffs will often end up mitigating damage or increasing damage, and damage mitigation spells mainly serve to aid the healing department, but right there you have a couple of ways to make druids more powerful without making them more damaging, and without actually giving them 'pzar' or 'minor pzar.'

Haha, oh Drakantus, please reread my quote, reread your quote, and explain what you meant when you said I wanted to "have it both ways."

And regarding the next part, once again I repeat myself, yes, if a mid mage does 4x damage compared to a mid warrior of the same experience/skill/level, its okay if a high mage only does 3x damage, especially if he's got other abilities to make up for it. Hell, as it stands in some zones, a lowbie mage does a few hundred times more damage than a lowbie warrior, maybe that needs a fix too?

Seriously, explain to me why its absolutely necessary that every class remains the same from level 20 to 30? I know you don't think much of stone skin, since its not guild and lower level and people have to work to get it (see your own post on that one), but nonetheless it IS a useful asset of druids. So just because druids have great damage mitigation at level 30, why is it necessary that they have reduced damage at 25 mixed with "minor stone skin" and even less damage at 20 mixed with "slightly rough and rocky skin"? Sky scouts, for example, are nothing more than somewhat dextrous fencers and single target damage throwers for most of their adult lives, and then hit a certain level and a certain instinct and... Holy crap, we can do what?! And look at healers--either they are incredibly overpowered the moment they get heal, or incredibly underpowered the preceeding levels, compared to warriors who scale more smoothly. Do you suggest with find a way to "smooth" the acquisition curve for heal, such that healers remain more balanced with other classes in the 20-25 range?

I mean, I suppose it might be a surprise to the random newbie/inexperienced neutral to find he can be a mindless damager at low levels and then have the option of changing things up at high levels, but as it says in the help files, "More information about this class must be obtained by playing it." And its not like we're pulling a bait and switch on every new player to play any class--even though the game manuals won't tell you what to expect for X class at Y level, most players manage to develop a few contacts to get a general idea of how every class ends up by the time they start getting their themselves.

A warrior doesn't really evolve, it just grows, and a lot of people like that, including you obviously. An elite 30 warrior does everything a mediocre 20 warrior does, only much better. People who play casters don't want that. That's why with one book, you might gain a lot of damage, with another, you suddenly gain some moderate healing ability, and with some items, you suddenly gain great tanking ability. And as you said yourself, you don't want to play a caster as it stands, you want to play a fully equipment dependent support damager class, that won't change roles in even a subtle and minor way as you progress, one that happens to cast spells instead of dual-wielding, and you don't want anyone else playing a caster as it stands. And in some games, you can do that. In Arctic, the staff and much of the player base have a different concept of druids and mages.

Pot?

Terk isn't insulting you, merely stating his assessment of the basis of your opinion. In fact, you even said yourself in other posts that you don't count yourself as elite. Suggesting that as an immortal, Terk can, should, and will always look at your character information when dealing with a mortal, rather than just talking to them on equal information footing on the boards, however, borders on the insulting and makes Arctic look bad. Also, your implication that suggesting someone isn't as skilled at and/or obsessed with this game as others is somehow a grave insult makes the entire playerbase look bad, and makes Arctic look like, well any of a number of other online games that I think less of.

But as I've said before, the learning curve on each class is slightly different, and there are many flavors of level 30 warrior. You've said so yourself, a thief/druid/mage needs to have some level of skill to get into the high end groups, while almost player could get in with a basher--but whereas you cited it as proof of how mages/druids/thieves are broken, I see it as evidence that almost every advice comment to the newbies is correct--warriors are one of the easiest classes to learn to play usefully in groups, and with their high hps, they area very tolerant to the idea of learning from your mistakes. Look at healers for another comparison--for mid-sized zones pretty much any healer will do, while for the more common high-level zones, nobody will use a less experienced healer without an expert healer there backing him up, and on the hard stuff, expert healers are pretty much required. There are a lot of players that I'd take to Frosty or MoM as a basher, but I would bring them to heal those fights at their current skill--but take any healer I trust for high level zoning, make him roll and rank a basher over a couple of days, and I'll trust him to do his job right on any mob.

Its interesting that you play two 30 warriors instead of one and a pally, or one and a healer--and I think that's more of a reflection of how incredibly powerful the heal spell and the bash skill remain compared to pretty much any other class ability, than an indication of the failings of any other particular class. The fact remains, the more frequent use of the ams flag/incredible saves than that of nobash means that silence/hold very rarely measures up to bash for spell stopping, alignment issues and faith/absolution blocking flags limits the use of paladins in that role, and in terms of causing target lag, warriors remain the only class capable of it. As you said, warriors are superior to druids in every way--while I disagree with this assessment, by your meassure aren't warriors also superior to, well most every other class in nearly every way?

Interesting to me is that you probably didn't expect anyone to actually read these threads.

In number one, there was only one player who would really agree with what you're suggesting now, and he is, well, you. If anything, more of them agree with my point that with tanks, its just easier for less experienced players to be useful (or at least not be a burden).

Number two was mostly a discussion of spells, which you consider a non-entity because they can't ever be lost--and while as you say many people suppored "these sort of ideas" (mainly that mages were broken back in 2004, before quite a few changes), their suggestions were along the lines of tweaking spell book loads, making more spells book based, etc, and had nothing to do with the ideas you espouse now. (Also, I think Sancho was needlessly insulting towards you there, but I'm sorry to admit he does make me chuckle). And it seems like half your problem was that the "mages are a very hard class for a new player to start on" message came so late in the character selection that some poor newbie played all the way to level 18 before realizing it, back when level 18 was a lot harder to reach too.

Three was an interesting idea, though focused on slots instead of damage--however, the original poster was the only one really for the idea, the rest were more concerned about the idea of trash mages in general, and tweaking book loads.

Arctic has shrunk for a number of reasons, anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can realize that many factors have contributed to the declining playerbase.

1) the rise of MMORPGs, particularly the easier ones, as well as free browser based gaming

2) the proliferation of broadband connections, which allow more people to play these "higher end" games much like better processing drew some people away from NetHack and Pong

3) the steep learning curve and competitive nature of game, which traditionally wasn't newbie friendly, hasn't adapted well to a time when very few "experienced mudders" are willing to leave one mud and try another.

4) the current clan-dynamic perpetuates a self-fulfilling prophesy where they believe "everybody is somebody." Any newbie that gets noticed too quickly is suspected as an unknown, and of course every clan helps perpetuate this belief by actually pretending to be newbies on many of their unknowns. At the higher levels the situation is much the same--for example, I learned a lot of small group zones solo in my early days, and one wipe where there was a long period of "zoning peace" between BSP and Wild/Outlaw, I did enough heal foddering from both sides, and also Chef, Sart, and a few other random leaders, that I learned a lot of the simpler high end zones well enough to start leading them myself when the next wipe started. Yet it took ages to convince people who didn't already know me that I wasn't some unknown splinter from an existing clan, because much as they pay lip service to the idea that "any player with the skill and the time can learn this game," they don't really seem to believe that someone can learn if they weren't taught. (the zone document leak has helped a lot, since its a concievable means by which a zone leader can be born outside of the current clans).

5) Non-profit nature of the muds means we don't have the resources to run it commercially. Back in the early days of Diku and MUD1, these games were the only game in town and the advertising paradigm of internet business didn't really exist, so there was absolutely no need for any game to advertise to compete for new players. Now, pay games and browser based free games, which lend themselves to ad placement better, are able to pay for advertising, while other games take advantage of free advertising (rank listings, etc) by offering game rewards for daily voting. If we could afford to pay Captain Kirk or MacGuyver to go on TV during a Heroes commercial break and talk about how they love zoning with the Weenors, we'd have at least 500 retained players within a month just by playing the numbers. As it stands, some older players have moved on to new games (and continue to switch games every couple of years), others have been sitebanned, and still others have grown up and have responsibilities that preclude mudding--and they aren't being replaced like they used to be, because fewer people are even stumbling upon our corner of the internet like they used to.

6) And of course, your point, that some people simply don't like Arctic as it is, and if they see another game, be it mud, MMORPG, or abusing themselves in a darkened room, that they'll enjoy more, they'll move on to it.