Posted by Ophi on September 24, 1999 at 03:44:17:
In Reply to: Open letter regarding conjurers. posted by Yep. on September 24, 1999 at 02:52:36:
Let us have a reasonable comparison of the new mage class: Conjurers.
One useful method of proof in mathematics, is proof by contradiction. With that in mind, let us continue.
As there can be only a true or false answer to the following statement, I wish to take an informal poll here as well as make the statement, so here goes:
Statement: Conjurers are not overpowered.
(True or False? Please post following messages to vote)
In comparison with their powers against existing classes in CF, the most notable powers seen so far, are the nightgaunts.
Compare that with the most similar called yet uncontrolled monster, 'the hunt', nightgaunt is considerably more powerful.
1st. The Hunt can only be called on players in the same area. Therefore, the underlying implied pre-requisite is that not only must you know where your victim is, but must actually be there. Nightgaunt, on the other hand, as have been seen, can bring people from anywhere in the world (just about) so long as they're visible.
2nd. The Hunt can be tripped, bashed. Nightgaunt doesn't seem to have arms and legs. Thus some of assassin's skills doesn't seem to work with Nightgaunt.
3rd. You can't travel by magical means from the Hunt, but you can outrun it on foot(if you're fast). There doesn't seem to be much of a running from the Nightgaunt, because it just "comes to you".
4th. After death, if and when they occur, if you're smart and you die at your pit, you can pretty much loot yourself. With Nightgaunts, even if you do die at your pit, you get carried off somewhere.
Therefore, based on 4 points of comparison, I declare, Nightgaunts is far more powerful than 'the Hunt', the only other comparable power worth mention.
My second point on conjurer's power is clairvoyance. It would appear, clairvoyance is nothing but a guise for imms on CF to bring back the old 'eye of intrigue'. The only reason this hasn't been 'abused' yet is because Masters seems to be the 'de facto' cabal to join for any mage for health reasons. That will change, however, when conjurers join Arbiters.
My third point on conjurer, is its lack of 'concentration'. What do I mean by that? Anyone who's ever had a high level conjurer can tell you it's worthless being either good or evil.
Final addressing toward Nepenthe's statement regarding that it would be harder to die to a nightgaunt than not.
Not so much as the statement itself, but rather, the attitude behind it. There are things that we can all agree that are best left unsaid. That is one of 'em.
The whole statement doesn't give any information, but merely points to player's deaths with the underlying message, you're doing something wrong but you just don't know it (That's a nice way of putting it without the smugness I would've added, which I will do so now)---- BUT I DO! Even he himself 'defended' his statement as comparing himself as a Ph.D. vs. students. Yet, in real life situations, if a teacher says something weird, a student can ask questions and get an answer. Oh here, we can ask, but until you're ready to answer, just exactly what is your point? That we're dumb? We don't know as much as you? We have no clue how to play a game that you wrote? Oh wow. What a refreshing idea. I never knew that.
Going back to conjurers. I am not even going to bother playing one nor playing against one until it's fixed. I see no point in fighting a class that can eye you, call a monster that can bring it's victim from within a cabal to another area near underdark where you have no chance of escape whatsoever.
THAT, is just my humble opinion. Feel free to comment.
Evil, you can't use archons. Thus sacrificing using a monster that casts sanct on you and protective shield.
Vice versa with good, except devils only do maladictions.
So why bother making either a good or evil conjurer? Just all go neutral. Was that the intended RP of conjurers? A bunch of impassive neutralistic I don't give a damn about either good or evil sort of people?