Conquest of the Horde

Simply as a sort of suggestion to that, why not remove the /roll system and simply have everyone use Trust?

Yes, this isn't as fair, however it would make the situations more realistic, combat-wise.

IE: Warrior in an arena fight with a Mage and no magic is allowed. Warrior -should- be the winner unless the Mage has a legitimate IC reason to possibly win. (Discuss this before fight begins.) Trust fight, the stronger would definitely win in this case. Roll fight, Mage could kick warrior's rear with cloth armor and a dagger or staff. Very unlikely!

Just noting, I don't trust enough people. I have had people argue with the logic between Jean winning a fist fight against a mage before. Sometimes it isn't worth it.

Little known fact: before I became an admin on CotH, I was also in a position of authority on a MUD a while back. The RPed out fights there had no structure, and thus were entirely trust-based.

The one thing I learned from that experience is that trust fights are *HORRIBLE* and should never, ever, be done unless you *REALLY* trust the person or can come up with a definite outcome to the fight ahead of time. Otherwise, it leads to e-peen waving and the single largest source of drama ever known by man. If you think conflict RP on CotH currently sparks drama, it's NOTHING compared to the drama started when you have two folks with both thinking that their character should win a certain conflict.

This leads to the ultimate problem with any sort of combat RP in which the odds shouldn't logically be 50/50...you have to rely on someone being the man and saying "Yeah, my character would have a low chance of winning this." It means that you have to talk this out ahead of time, and come up with something that's fair. The problem comes when there's a disagreement. "My paladin should be able to beat your warrior, even without magic." What do you say to that? How do you resolve that issue?

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

Everyone should be on a level playing field for those. One of the most fun experiences in my RP has to have been participating in the two Surry-bowls. One part of those contests was archery/ranged combat. There were aeons-old Night Elf hunters that'd used the bow for gajillions of years.

But a Dwarf Warrior won by tossing rocks at the target. And it was -great-. Some people thought it was unrealistic and so on, but sometimes, realism clashes with fun. Fun is what we play for. We play this game to have fun, so why would we automatically give some players an advantage, in disfavor to the newer people that're just learning the ropes?

Part of why I love CoTH is a certain quote close to my heart straight from ol' Clovis: "Life isn't fair. But CoTH tries to be."

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Yes, certainly. They can create magic shockwaves and thunderclaps, do AoE Bladestorms, and best of all? Reflect incoming magic spells back at the casters. If you find no satisfaction in slapping a mage's fireball right back at them, I don't know what to say. Also, shouts.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

All sorts, even if just a single ability hints to the class being able to segue into a variant. Hunters and Beast-Masters, Elven Rangers and such come to mind, Paladins and Templars(They even have abilities literally named 'of the Templar', combined with Holy Shock which is a Templar spell), and Shamans and Far-seers, Spiritwalkers(Shamans have Spiritwalk as part of their Feral Spirits), Battle-Shamans and Spirit Champions..

Even the Engineering-based classes have Engineering to support their skills. From ammo-dispensers, to dragon guns, lightning generators, and ripping through space into another dimension.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

...Let me put it this way: Make all Applications optional. Really. Why?

Well, it makes everyone happy. The people that're drooling over character progression get their chance at a storyline and all that epic fun training, and the people that just want to jump in and play something different get the ability to play those unusual archetypes which they love so much.

Everyone's satisfied.

(08-26-2011, 09:30 AM)Grakor456 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem comes when there's a disagreement. "My paladin should be able to beat your warrior, even without magic." What do you say to that? How do you resolve that issue?

I really do not think there is a definate resolution that can be given that would solve all of the problems of conflict RP other than: Be reasonable

Each situation is different and each character should have his own strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps people simply need to be made more aware of this fact. Your character won't be able to win every battle, as much as you hate losing.

In a perfect world, the physically stronger warrior would beat the physically weaker rogue in a fair fist fight. But there is no such thing as the perfect world. There is no system that has no flaws. I really think the best we can do in such a scenario is be respectful of the other person(s) involved and try to politely come to a solution to which both parties can agree to. Be willing to make concessions and try not to take all of the cookies in the cookie jar.

Maybe you could agree to some substantial wounds and a tough challenge for the warrior who will ultimately be the victor because he is the more skilled and physically stronger than the Light-less paladin as you have discovered in a friendly talk with both parties.

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

No on the level playing field thing. I'm sorry but as I've stated elsewhere not everyone is going to be good at everything. It's just the way it rolls. Just creating comedy because some people think it's "funny" (and I do have to wonder as a lot of slapstick comedy isn't funny at all) isn't a reason for me to roll with it. I don't want to be "fair"; what I'd like - wishful thinking - is for people to learn to be okay with not being as good as everyone else. Maybe acknowledging that a rogue isn't going to grasp the intricacies of the Arcane would be a good start - but then I'll even do PvP action and accept the fact I just got spanked royally and roll with it.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Yep, actually I do believe every single class has something unique about it, and these unique things should actually be regarded as unique. Yes, a warrior or rogue can fire a bow, but can they do so with the speed, damage, and accuracy as a hunter? No. Should they, therefore, be rather impressed, and vice versa? Well yes it would be nice - but on a level playing field may never happen.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

It was brought up that hunters can do beast-master, deadshot, etc just on their talent tree, but complicated hybrid things (and I know Demon Hunters are the Dirty Word of Wow, but as an example) are things which actually are nigh on impossible to do without either a tonne of imagination or a fair bit of added items to support it. And, let's face it, we play a visual game so why not have the visuals or something to back it up?

I honestly can't name every single combination out there but I'd suggest some of the hybrid classes probably need the most help, while some of the base classes can just have a bit of oomph added to their stats to emphasize the point. (but you all know how crap I am with numbers)

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

How long is a piece of string? Personally I'd say if it was already built on the base class, go for it, but if someone wanted a variant, they could put a proposal on a case by case basis - if they just wanted a title and a stat boost to what already existed, great, easily sorted. If they wanted something more hybridized then I'd say an application (not to mention an observation of rp quality because I still insist that particular -classes- aren't the problem, it's the -players- themselves who go a bit overboard).

I also think it's worth when creating these systems to create a definite negative to the class - when you specialise in one thing you tend to lose abilities in others, or perhaps in some cases the training is gruelling. When I had the demon hunter understudy I carried around a load of demonic runes; it was the only way the character could cast his spells because he was a rogue and didn't have mana - and if people recall you can actually kill yourself with enough demonic runes and hitpoint loss. In other words, his spells -hurt-; he had to think very hard about whether to do a spell and didn't just derp about casting them willy-nilly. He could do insane damage, sure, but his almost total lack of armour meant that he did actually get his ass beat quite often, and that was fine - but put a few spells on with demonic runes and if I did it completely wrong, I'd kill my own self faster than the person I was fighting. If some of these prestige class things or even some of the base abilities actually cost one a bit the more they specialise, people might be a bit more aware of their own limitations and therefore NOT quite so Calvin-ball about their abilities or weaknesses (or lack thereof)

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

I think it's up to the character. But even then, I hate roll fights. I think that we should know our characters well enough that we can decide first, if they could logically win. Sometimes during trust fights I try to lose, not only because it makes sense, but because losing helps develop character.

Granted, I'm probably shooting too high there. I think it's up to the group to decide if there are roll bonuses.

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Of course Warriors are special. Warriors convert rage into power, the more they get it, the more they can hit. Thunder Clap is essentially converting rage into energy and releasing it in the form of electricity. They can reflect spells back at the caster. They can enter some sort of trance where they spin their weapons around like a madman destroying everything in their path.

Not only are they an extremely versatile class, but they have their own quirks.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

If you can do it OOCly, you can do it ICly, is what I've always believed. If you're a retribution paladin, you can OOCly create hammers out of light along with pulses of light energy. You can then swirl them around you and create an actual storm of light. (See: Divine Storm.) If you're a Druid and you put enough effort into it, you can call up the spirits of nature and create an actual storm. You get the idea.

Way back when we had the tier prestige system, we had tiers 1, 2, and 3. I would say that everything that was in the third tier in that system (that isn't being wiped, like High Divinist,) would require an application. Such as a Shadow Ascendant or Demon Hunter.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

Again, if it's possible OOCly, or it makes complete sense for that character to be able to do whatever they are doing, then let it go without an application. If it isn't possible ICly, or it makes no sense whatsoever (Like an Old God worshiping Paladin who shoots lazers out of his eyes and can use both nature magic and the light, just for example), then it should require an application.

I'm tired as I write this, so forgive me if it's a little over the top or nonsensical or something like that.

Grakor456 Wrote:My fifth thought is that it is ironic given this that there are more people playing battle-mages than there are enhancement shaman.

I play an enhancement shaman! /shot

But in all fairness, he sucks in combat, but it could be because Kapre is just an oversized blueberry marshmellow. I have been contemplating if I should have his skills develop IC or remain a perpetual punching bag (and thus contribute to his characteristic cowardice). It's something of a thought--do I want character development that progresses a character as I start him, or should I keep him at a static state where he remains what people know him by and love him for? If I can figure a way for a middle ground of character development while keeping the best parts of his starting character without that trait clashing with development, then perhaps this is favorable.

Yes, I posted that before this one, which is first in your ramble, but I thought pointing the above out would make the below more flowing and relevant:

Grakor456 Wrote:Thragash going down the path of a Runemaster was rather enlightening to me, in many ways. Seeing all of that happen gave me things to think about, but it also gave me a lot of frustration, which is probably the cause of half of my crankiness on this subject. One thing that always bothered me about the RP that Thragash would find himself in was how his skills were handled in combat RP. I do not exaggerate when I say that, during his duration as a Runemaster (and later a Bone Crusher) he has lost more fist-fights than he has won, generally against people not specializing in fist-fighting like he does. Such is the sense of humor of Lady Luck. My first thought, then, is that it always sucks for a character to supposedly be good at something, and lose to someone who supposedly is only fair at it. Doubly so when it happens consistently, as Lady Luck is as cruel as she is humorous.

This is one of many reasons why I've made my main character and most RPed toon to be such a weak fighter.

The strong character never has a real appeal to me, which is why I get bored with Diawata so easily. For one, people will always compete who is stronger, which is natural in any sort of strongman competition... but when it comes to RP, people may resort to ridiculous lengths OOCly to make their character ICly stronger, leading to situations such as trust fights that drag on forever to absolutely nonsensical roll fights wherein a kitten can topple a giant. The only reason I go with roll fights is because there is a guarantee to HP, whereas in trust fights, while attacks make better sense. they can really drag on forever if the players are particularly stubborn. Otherwise, I believe there should be no OOC fight to an IC fight. I'd rather just roll a weak fighter who can be the consistent loser in every combat RP so I can enjoy a fight and move on with my life.

I remember back in my AOL RP days, characters in certain guilds (affiliated RP groups) build up their HP and dice power through constant role-play. For instance, my character, fresh in the guild, would start with 5 HP and a /roll 6. The more he sparred and the more fights he won, he would eventually gather EXP and eventually build his way to 20 HP and a /roll 50. That way, characters have to actually RP their combat training and not resort to "oh, my character is strong from the start". It's annoying for players who want to start with a strong character, but guilds would then have the option for what would be our equivalent of the "hero" class... but not allow those players to spar with weaker characters who are simply training.

The above situation sounds a little too complex for CotH, so I will not propose it. That, and in order for the dice and HP to be built upon, it'd require lots and LOTS of logging as proof you're not sneaking EXP on your own. WoW doesn't have an automated log system, and I despise Elephant's 250 word limit.

I've been told I should stop playing weak characters and get used to strong characters. But really, I see no appeal in playing the hero, traditional or not. I'm happy being a comical sidekick.

Anyway, on to your questions!

Grakor456 Wrote:1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

1.) Of course I feel there should be a natural bonus within certain areas of combat for specific classes, as well as natural weaknesses. This isn't so much because "it makes sense" as it is allowance of variety and spice in combat. A plate-wearing fighter should have higher defense than a cloth-armored one, but of course the cloth-wearer would have higher mobility and flexibility. If everyone has equal ability regardless of the character's class, what's the point of -having- a class?

This still applies even after your explanation. Although technically you don't HAVE to be a hunter in order to be an archer, I'd rather players take to the lore justifications of the class before deciding on how to roll that character with that combat skill. If I want a draenei archer that also specializes in Light magic, sorry. I gotta sacrifice one for the other if I hope to roll this character to be that way, so no Light arrows for me, no matter how cool that sounds. This was the dilemma I had with Urameil when I converted his original character (a human-hating shapeshifting fallen angel) to be more WoW appropriate (do I want a druid night elf or a demonology warlock blood elf?). In the end, I went with the race and class combination that best fits his character while still applying the power as I saw fit, and any combat restrictions present would appropriately apply when events come that call for skills outside what is known in particular classes. I say... work the best you can within the restrictions of the class. The restrictions are there for a reason, and power can derive from it. People should stop griping about equal playing fields, really, because if they're all truly equal, we'd be boring and stagnant.

2.) Proficiency in all kinds of weaponry. Not every other class can have that specialty. I think the Warrior class is the closest, for instance, a human can actually become an archer. BUT... I never rolled a Warrior in PVP, so I am actually ignorant with how Warriors roll. I'm going on how I am told they can be proficient in all weapons at the cost of having no magic.

3.) I do feel that characters who roll a class should actually RP out whatever talent spec they have and not do everything all at once (a Shaman, for instance, should not be be capable of doing things a Restoration, Enhancement, and Elemental shaman would do all at the same time). That sounds like common sense in regards to WoW, but I've seen people RP all three talent specs (A Ret Paladin would do something Holies would do). As for character concepts branching out, that's an iffy one... I thought that was what the prestige classes are for. But... I'm rather neutral and indifferent to that one.

4.) I have to see the variant system in action for a time before I can decide where to draw the line.

1. Do you feel that certain classes should have a natural bonus in things such as fist-fight or non-magic tournaments, or do you believe that everyone should be on a level playing field for these?

By all means yes, I always wonder how a Tauren Brute can lose against a Gnome in a fist-fight, it's realisticly just not possible. Nor would a mage ever beat a trained warrior in a battle of swords, unless he had some lucky strike. Then again, why would a mage duel a warrior with swords if he can destroy him with his spells, or a Gnome use is fists when could crazy inventions and gadgets to blow up that nasty tauren. I know this would cause drama for some people but they just need to realize where their character's strength lies and behave accordingly, instead of trying to win every time.


2. Do you believe that, given the way many such fights explained in #1 are handled, that the warrior class has anything truly special about it for the purposes of RP? (Please do not answer "you can play a civilian as one.")

Oh yes, every class can take up arms, but that doesn't make him a warrior. Though you have various levels of skill, varying from a peasant-goes-militia to an awesome gladiator-that-rules-the-arena. Now the first might get beaten by a priest who wields a blade whereas the latter of totally disect the priest as if he was eating steak. The epitome of warriors are people who wield weapons with unsurpassed skill and unmanly strength or agilty. Even Death Knights and paladins would have their hands full when battling a warrior in melee combat. Besides that, not every character has to be special.

3. Given the different talent specs and different classes present within WoW, what kinds of character concept do you feel requires branching out from the base classes?

Anything that can't be at least represented by base classes, say a Hydromancer could be a mage, a witch doctor could still be a shaman and a shadow ascendant might still be a (shadow)priest and a mountain king still a warrior.
But a Necromancer isn't a mage, a Runemaster isn't a shaman or a warrior. Those classes definitly branch out.

4. Presuming that the variant system is what is chosen in the other thread, what do you think the line should be as far as dividing what should require an application and what should not? Do you think that it's even possible to draw an unambiguous line for this?

To be short, anything that is more powerfull than the basic classes or is radically different from them. This must be judged by case to case but is the most unambiguous I can think of.

...see Reigen's answer.

I'm just going to do 3 and 4 really:

3) Technomages and engineers specializing in non-Gnomish non-Goblin technology, Druids of the Nightmare, and racially significant classes like Priestess of the Moon and Spellbreaker are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. None of these are essential to RP, but they're areas of RP that are rarely, if ever, explored (at least on CotH).

4) Basically, anything you can't spec or profession to resemble I suppose. Blood Magi are either Fire Mages or Fire Warlocks, but Spellbreakers are close-combat anti-mages with no similar spells except Spellsteal and Counterspell. The more esoteric kinds of engineering also have no ingame representation outside of quest rewards and some similar-looking game items. I may be the only one, but I still like the idea of Fel Sworn and Felblood Orcs and Elves, so I'll throw that in there. Runemasters too to some extent, but Inscription and a Mage or Shaman is sort of the same thing and since they have the same spells it's only a matter of imagining them coming out of runes.

Warriors have plenty going for them IC. Soldiers and Knights are just those, soldiers and knights. IC they're Joe Schmoes who wear armor and hit things with swords. Warriors on the other hand can go into blood-crazed frenzies, shout so loud it drives people away in fear, can smash the ground so hard it causes lightning bursts, and so ooon and so foooorth. IC warriors are terrifying blurrs of heavy armor and big fucking weapons.

On the side note, hunters =/= archers. Hunters are not only ranged fighters, but also survivalists and animal whisperers. Humans can be arches because they're just chumps with mail armor and bows, but not hunters (until cata) because humans don't have that affinity with being hardy and nature-tuned. Want a human archer? Roll a rogue or a warrior for your OOC class.

For talent tree abilities, that one is iffy. I see some people say that, for example, a Ret/Prot pally can't heal at all, or shouldn't, IC. Then I see others who say they can but not as much as a holy pally. It's annoying there's no consensus, but generally as long as Retadins aren't using holy shock, protadins aren't using divine storm, and holyadins aren't using avenger's shield, things should be ok. I don't mind some hybridization, like a elemental-enhancement shaman, just know your limits.

As for branching out, mostly things that aren't covered by the base classes at ALL. Necromancer sorta comes to mind (closest to him is a Shadow priest), and things like spellbreakers and Blood mages.

(08-26-2011, 09:30 AM)Grakor456 Wrote: [ -> ]This leads to the ultimate problem with any sort of combat RP in which the odds shouldn't logically be 50/50...you have to rely on someone being the man and saying "Yeah, my character would have a low chance of winning this." It means that you have to talk this out ahead of time, and come up with something that's fair.

I failed most trust fights because I wanted to avoid the drama. Most characters can learn more from their failures than simply winning, anyway.

There are other ways to lose besides getting K.O.'ed by a staff from a weakling mage. The warrior could get too frustrated, or ashamed to fight such a weakling. Or perhaps he's afraid he'll break the mage too hard? I've 'quit' a few fights, even rolled ones, with my character being disgusted by the antics of the opponent. The last one being my dwarf getting literally kicked over and over by a troll flipping over him and simply dancing around his attacks, mearly toying with him instead of giving him a real test of arms.

I've always RP'ed my Death Knight as not as strong as a spell-caster or as good with a blade as a warrior. The unique thing being more vicious or brutal, giving the illusion of more strength.

I stand by my point of warriors being able to pull off various tactics for every situation. Melee combatant? Disarm, concussion blow and shields. Spell-flinger? Spell reflect and Gag Order. Flying units? Grab a gun. Warlockery curses and weakness? Overpower with rage. Towering titans? Take'em down with the biggest hammer you can find. Perhaps warriors are a bit OP in that regard, but rogues have their tricks, hunters their traps. None can stand toe-to-toe with a Warrior.... imo.