Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Kasmir Chronicles - Death of a Hardcore Hero (Part 4)

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 10:05:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

ARGH!

Kasmir building his Blade Fury Sasin is in the Chaos Sanctuary. Now
normally Kasmir has two PCs and would be able to load in our
enchantress. But being out of the ocuntry and only having his notebook,
he did not have that luxury.

Now we all know the difference between a normal Blade Fury and one with
a Level 28 Enchant with maxed Warmth synergy and almost full Fire
Mastery. And he caught a brief glimpse of the power of the enchant when
he offed Mepf a few days earlier.

Kasmir empties out the Sanctuary and in a brief moment of
unreasonability decides to take on the Big D solo without the Enchant
with his Level 26 Sasin.

OOPS! Once again the deeds are remembered.

I had high hopes for Kasmir's Blade Fury Sasin, especially with our
enchantresses being where they are, and I encouraged him to get a Might
merc once he got to act 2 NM. Oh the things that Sasin would have been
able to do when he hooked her up with us.

I do hope he builds another Blade Fury Sasin.

Bongo and I await that characters return. So do Rube and Cinne and
Caal.

Orion Ryder

More about : kasmir chronicles death hardcore hero part

Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:51:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

Pause for a moment of silence for the fallen hero, Kasmir
"Kasmir is dead, long may his deeds be remembered!"

Hopefully a new, wiser, and more powerful offspring has been left behind to
avenge his death.

Remember, "Daughter-of-Kasmir", helpful heroes are willing to help in your
upbringing. The warriors of Master Spook will assist those of Master Bongo
and Master Orion to assist in providing a rapid education in the art of
"Hardcore Monster Mashing" tm :-)

How can we help?

Ruben
*Spook_HCA
*Spook-HCB
*Spook-HCC

PS: Does this mean that the tonight's proposed Nightmare romp is postponed?
If so, that's fine, as Cinna and I would really prefer to level a few more
levels first anyway. I think her bear and my fire sorc are around level
38, and could likely kill Baal in a heartbeat (Baal's minions dropped like
flies to them and Orion's wind druid), but have chosen to not do so yet.

If it is postponed, for how long, a day or two, or a week, or ? Baring any
unexpected deaths, I expect to have my barb, fire sorc, enchantress, and
maybe a cold sorc in Nightmare in another week.

"Orion Ryder" <orionryder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111503937.668888.314030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ARGH!
>
> Kasmir building his Blade Fury Sasin is in the Chaos Sanctuary. Now
> normally Kasmir has two PCs and would be able to load in our
> enchantress. But being out of the ocuntry and only having his notebook,
> he did not have that luxury.
>
> Now we all know the difference between a normal Blade Fury and one with
> a Level 28 Enchant with maxed Warmth synergy and almost full Fire
> Mastery. And he caught a brief glimpse of the power of the enchant when
> he offed Mepf a few days earlier.
>
> Kasmir empties out the Sanctuary and in a brief moment of
> unreasonability decides to take on the Big D solo without the Enchant
> with his Level 26 Sasin.
>
> OOPS! Once again the deeds are remembered.
>
> I had high hopes for Kasmir's Blade Fury Sasin, especially with our
> enchantresses being where they are, and I encouraged him to get a Might
> merc once he got to act 2 NM. Oh the things that Sasin would have been
> able to do when he hooked her up with us.
>
> I do hope he builds another Blade Fury Sasin.
>
> Bongo and I await that characters return. So do Rube and Cinne and
> Caal.
>
> Orion Ryder
>
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:55:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On 22 Mar 2005 07:05:37 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orionryder@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Kasmir building his Blade Fury Sasin is in the Chaos Sanctuary. Now
>normally Kasmir has two PCs and would be able to load in our
>enchantress. But being out of the ocuntry and only having his notebook,
>he did not have that luxury.
>
>Now we all know the difference between a normal Blade Fury and one with
>a Level 28 Enchant with maxed Warmth synergy and almost full Fire
>Mastery. And he caught a brief glimpse of the power of the enchant when
>he offed Mepf a few days earlier.
>
>Kasmir empties out the Sanctuary and in a brief moment of
>unreasonability decides to take on the Big D solo without the Enchant
>with his Level 26 Sasin.
>
>OOPS! Once again the deeds are remembered.

My sympathies to Kasmir, but IMO this was probably a needless death.
There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo, unless
it was lag, or she got bone caged at just the wrong moment. I
_strongly_ suspect that being accustomed to Enchant made Kasmir
impatient, and he took unnecessary risks.

Which brings me to my subject line: Chant is Cheesy. Sorry, but in
1.10 this skill is just way overpowered, especially for leveling
junior chars. You can take any new char into a full chant game and
with just a plain vanilla short bow and a char to give wps, own pretty
much all of Normal, and level to near 30, in under an hour. A level
25 throwbarb, BF sassy, bowazon, summoner (necro or even _druid_!)
with quite ordinary gear can get a good Enchant and power level
through most of NM. There is something seriously bogus about a level
1 mule char being able to virtually one-hit Normal Act bosses.

-- Roy L
Related resources
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42406143.2026050@news.telus.net...
> On 22 Mar 2005 07:05:37 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orionryder@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Kasmir building his Blade Fury Sasin is in the Chaos Sanctuary. Now
>>normally Kasmir has two PCs and would be able to load in our
>>enchantress. But being out of the ocuntry and only having his notebook,
>>he did not have that luxury.
>>
>>Now we all know the difference between a normal Blade Fury and one with
>>a Level 28 Enchant with maxed Warmth synergy and almost full Fire
>>Mastery. And he caught a brief glimpse of the power of the enchant when
>>he offed Mepf a few days earlier.
>>
>>Kasmir empties out the Sanctuary and in a brief moment of
>>unreasonability decides to take on the Big D solo without the Enchant
>>with his Level 26 Sasin.
>>
>>OOPS! Once again the deeds are remembered.
>
> My sympathies to Kasmir, but IMO this was probably a needless death.
> There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo, unless
> it was lag, or she got bone caged at just the wrong moment. I
> _strongly_ suspect that being accustomed to Enchant made Kasmir
> impatient, and he took unnecessary risks.
>
> Which brings me to my subject line: Chant is Cheesy. Sorry, but in
> 1.10 this skill is just way overpowered, especially for leveling
> junior chars. You can take any new char into a full chant game and
> with just a plain vanilla short bow and a char to give wps, own pretty
> much all of Normal, and level to near 30, in under an hour. A level
> 25 throwbarb, BF sassy, bowazon, summoner (necro or even _druid_!)
> with quite ordinary gear can get a good Enchant and power level
> through most of NM. There is something seriously bogus about a level
> 1 mule char being able to virtually one-hit Normal Act bosses.
>
> -- Roy L

You have a point about high level Chant being cheesy, but the same thing
could be done in 1.09 in cow games, even quicker, and with no effort or
risk at all on the part of the junior character. Cheesy or not, it's part
of the game as it now stands. Building a hardcore enchantress from scratch
is a bit time consuming, and I'd be the last one to tell someone to not use
that character to its fullest in coop play. Quickly getting lost characters
back to playable levels takes much of the tedium out of the game, in my
opinion.

Unlike the hackers, botters, thieves, and PK'rs, I don't see how they affect
YOUR enjoyment of the game. I personally have no problem with it. Perhaps
those that are going through the game the first time shouldn't use it, but
then maybe they shouldn't be in hardcore anyway.

/begin quote: "There is something seriously bogus about a level1 mule char
being able to virtually one-hit Normal Act bosses" /end quote
I think it would be seriously risky for any solo level 1 hardcore character
to take on Durial, enchant or not. It's quite likely that he'd never get
the chance to make a hit, as his level 1 merc would drop instantly,
providing no protection. Even Andarial could prove challenging! Hummmm,
maybe a project for some rainy day :-) Nah!
Diablo could prove interesting too.

Ruben
March 22, 2005 11:20:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"Orion Ryder" <orionryder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111503937.668888.314030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> OOPS! Once again the deeds are remembered.

I sure do admire his pluck. I know when I was new to this game and playing
SC I died to Diablo a lot. To be overcoming that learning curve while
playing HC is admirable.

> Bongo and I await that characters return. So do Rube and Cinne and
> Caal.

Yup, the game is a lot more fun playing in a party. Hopefully we can get
Kasmir in our little group and protect him a little bit so he can get past
Diablo.

I'm down to two playing characters myself. The MFing Blizz Sorc is L58 and
farming NM Mephy. The other one is the undefined Pally who's trying to make
his career choice while sitting in Harrogath, I think he's in his late 20's.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 22, 2005 11:20:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42406143.2026050@news.telus.net...
>
> My sympathies to Kasmir, but IMO this was probably a needless death.
> There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo, unless
> it was lag, or she got bone caged at just the wrong moment.

Or the player is relatively inexperienced and despite this has been bitten
by the HC bug.

You have read the three previous spot reports OR has written about Kasmir's
HC experiences, haven't you Roy? And how in each case he has died to Diablo.
Making newbie mistakes like having no purples in his belt. So save the self
righteous bullshit and cut the guy a break.

And FYI, I lost a 700+ life Wolf (L24) in the CS on Friday night. No it
wasn't IM either. It was my fat fingers hitting the esc key while trying to
drink potions and not being able to react to it fast enough. Everybody dies
in HC occasionally.

> I
> _strongly_ suspect that being accustomed to Enchant made Kasmir
> impatient, and he took unnecessary risks.

Kasmir has been out of town the last few weeks. And Orion has just started
building his Enchantress in the interim. So your suspicions are wrong.

> Which brings me to my subject line: Chant is Cheesy. Sorry, but in
> 1.10 this skill is just way overpowered, especially for leveling
> junior chars.

Yup, it sure is cheezy. But it's part of the game. Just like twinking up low
level character with uber gear to speed their early leveling. Like you admit
to doing a few threads down (Angelic jewelry combined with Hsuru's or
Arcana's was your favorite as I recall). So what's your point? It's just a
matter of degrees. If you're going to take the challenge out of the early
game with items, how can you then condemn others for doing it with Enchant?
Pot>Kettel>Black

> You can take any new char into a full chant game and
> with just a plain vanilla short bow and a char to give wps, own pretty
> much all of Normal, and level to near 30, in under an hour.

You must have a LOT more experience doing this than me. The best I can do is
a couple hours to 30 using Chant, sleeze Ancients and Baal runs. This is
without twinking too. If I spend the time to burn in a game and cycle my
mules to gear up it takes even longer.

> A level
> 25 throwbarb, BF sassy, bowazon, summoner (necro or even _druid_!)
> with quite ordinary gear can get a good Enchant and power level
> through most of NM.

Enchanted characters are glass cannons. They can kill things left, center
and right. But they die very easily. I think it's a fair trade off.

> There is something seriously bogus about a level
> 1 mule char being able to virtually one-hit Normal Act bosses.

Once again, how is this significantly different than twinked out low level
characters. Remember, I killed Andy at L3 and Baal at L8 with twinkies. I
see very little difference between twinking and Chanting.

Besides, what does it matter? We've both played this game for years. Is it
that much of a sin to take a shortcut through normal to get to NM?
Personally it takes me an average of about 2 hours/act to quest a character,
getting all the quests and WPs. Do I really have to spend the approximate 10
hours to work a character through normal difficulty to measure up in your
eyes? Normal difficulty is boring, it poses very little challenge to me.
Must I REALLY endure all its tedium in order to get to a fun part of the
game? I just started playing on west again. Do I really have to spend 10
hours per character just so I can enjoy a game with Orion and Ruben and
Cinnavere and ...?

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:31:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:20:42 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42406143.2026050@news.telus.net...
>>
>> My sympathies to Kasmir, but IMO this was probably a needless death.
>> There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo, unless
>> it was lag, or she got bone caged at just the wrong moment.
>
>Or the player is relatively inexperienced and despite this has been bitten
>by the HC bug.

Been there, done that. Heck, my first HC char died in A1 Normal.

>And FYI, I lost a 700+ life Wolf (L24) in the CS on Friday night. No it
>wasn't IM either. It was my fat fingers hitting the esc key while trying to
>drink potions and not being able to react to it fast enough. Everybody dies
>in HC occasionally.

Been there, done that, too.

>> Which brings me to my subject line: Chant is Cheesy. Sorry, but in
>> 1.10 this skill is just way overpowered, especially for leveling
>> junior chars.
>
>Yup, it sure is cheezy. But it's part of the game. Just like twinking up low
>level character with uber gear to speed their early leveling. Like you admit
>to doing a few threads down (Angelic jewelry combined with Hsuru's or
>Arcana's was your favorite as I recall).

I wouldn't exactly call low-level sets "uber" gear. And their main
effect is enhanced safety, not instant xp steamroller.

>So what's your point? It's just a
>matter of degrees.

I agree. Just like soup that is too salty is just a matter of degree.
But that doesn't mean it wasn't a _mistake_ to put so much salt in it.

>If you're going to take the challenge out of the early
>game with items, how can you then condemn others for doing it with Enchant?
>Pot>Kettel>Black

Obviously, twinking reduces the challenge. But it doesn't make all
monsters fall down at the mere sight of you. And there is a challenge
in getting the twinking items in the first place.

I guess part of my beef with chant is that it is just one more point
where the MP game has been made so easy, compared to SP and solo play.

>> You can take any new char into a full chant game and
>> with just a plain vanilla short bow and a char to give wps, own pretty
>> much all of Normal, and level to near 30, in under an hour.
>
>You must have a LOT more experience doing this than me. The best I can do is
>a couple hours to 30 using Chant, sleeze Ancients and Baal runs. This is
>without twinking too. If I spend the time to burn in a game and cycle my
>mules to gear up it takes even longer.

Getting to the sweet spots to level to 25 is the key. And getting the
wps immediately.

>> A level
>> 25 throwbarb, BF sassy, bowazon, summoner (necro or even _druid_!)
>> with quite ordinary gear can get a good Enchant and power level
>> through most of NM.
>
>Enchanted characters are glass cannons. They can kill things left, center
>and right. But they die very easily. I think it's a fair trade off.

And I think it's cheesy and especially _unbalanced_.

>> There is something seriously bogus about a level
>> 1 mule char being able to virtually one-hit Normal Act bosses.
>
>Once again, how is this significantly different than twinked out low level
>characters.

It is _very_ different. A good chant can down Normal Duriel before he
even gets a hit in, especially with a summoner.

>Remember, I killed Andy at L3 and Baal at L8 with twinkies. I
>see very little difference between twinking and Chanting.

TWinking, at least in theory, has to be earned by getting the items.
Chant is just a free xp machine.

>Besides, what does it matter? We've both played this game for years. Is it
>that much of a sin to take a shortcut through normal to get to NM?

No, my complaint is with the faulty design of the game, not the people
who take advantage of it.

>Personally it takes me an average of about 2 hours/act to quest a character,
>getting all the quests and WPs. Do I really have to spend the approximate 10
>hours to work a character through normal difficulty to measure up in your
>eyes? Normal difficulty is boring, it poses very little challenge to me.
>Must I REALLY endure all its tedium in order to get to a fun part of the
>game?

In SP, you have no choice.

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:01:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

Hi,

royls@telus.net wrote in news:4240fb0a.41398525@news.telus.net:

>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>>news:42406143.2026050@news.telus.net...
>>>
>
>>Personally it takes me an average of about 2 hours/act to quest a
>>character, getting all the quests and WPs. Do I really have to spend
>>the approximate 10 hours to work a character through normal difficulty
>>to measure up in your eyes? Normal difficulty is boring, it poses very
>>little challenge to me. Must I REALLY endure all its tedium in order
>>to get to a fun part of the game?
>
> In SP, you have no choice.

wrong. In SP, you can start a char with the -act5 trick, which puts him
at level 33 with all skill/stat points to distribute.
I always do this and rush the new char through Normal, which should only
take about 3 hours. And level 33 is quite good for starting out in NM
diff on your own.

Some people frown upon using the act5 trick, but as it is SP I don't
care.

Regards,

Oliver
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 3:09:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

> Which is why IMO cheesing with chant can get HC players into trouble
> by making them impatient when chant is not there.

Says who? Chant does not help my life ball or my mercs life. Nor does
it prevent cursed elemental damage from inflicting pain on my
character. I try to be careful as hell even with an enchant, just
because its hardcore.

Oh and without enchant, I am probably over careful.

> Just be careful of indigestion.

Nexium dude, Nexium.

Orion Ryder
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 3:20:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

> Sorry, Kasmir. Re-reading what I posted, I agree that it was badly
> said, and came off a little harsh.

I told Kasmir about this exchange and he laughed it off. HE only
experience a chant twice prior to the battle. By the time he fought
Diablo he forgot it even existed. He said his fall this time was
because he did not put any points into FADE. He's still learning that
there are some things that are GIVENS at one time or another.

Last month our initial battle with normal Diablo was intense as Hell.
Then we had to have another one to get anther person's character
through.

Once we had that first breakthrough that was it. We sent back a higher
character to help anyone of our other characters get by the big D.

So far nothing has even come close to the adrenaline rush I experienced
during our inital battle with Diablo. If I had to quit the game now, I
could at least relish that for all eternity. But I just have so much
fun playing with my friends on the realms so give us the "cheese" cuz
we're are getting good and stoned on it.

As a matter of fact, when we play tonite, the person handling the
enchanter is going to say "Cheese is being served in the sewers".

And remember we are not playing against each other. There is no single
"winner". The goal is to defeat the minions of Diablo.

Orion Ryder
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:14:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:01:50 +0100, Oliver Wenzel <ouuch@t-online.de>
wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in news:4240fb0a.41398525@news.telus.net:
>
>>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>news:42406143.2026050@news.telus.net...
>>
>>>Personally it takes me an average of about 2 hours/act to quest a
>>>character, getting all the quests and WPs. Do I really have to spend
>>>the approximate 10 hours to work a character through normal difficulty
>>>to measure up in your eyes? Normal difficulty is boring, it poses very
>>>little challenge to me. Must I REALLY endure all its tedium in order
>>>to get to a fun part of the game?
>>
>> In SP, you have no choice.
>
>wrong. In SP, you can start a char with the -act5 trick, which puts him
>at level 33 with all skill/stat points to distribute.
>I always do this and rush the new char through Normal, which should only
>take about 3 hours. And level 33 is quite good for starting out in NM
>diff on your own.

Sorry, what exactly is the "-act5 trick"?

Of course SP allows you to use any sort of cheat at all, including
going on Open Bnet and getting white items that confer invincibility
and infinite damage. I don't think that's the point.

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:04:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:09:15 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4240fb0a.41398525@news.telus.net...
>>>>
>>>> My sympathies to Kasmir, but IMO this was probably a needless death.
>>>> There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo, unless
>>>> it was lag, or she got bone caged at just the wrong moment.
>>>
>>>Or the player is relatively inexperienced and despite this has been bitten
>>>by the HC bug.
>>
>> Been there, done that. Heck, my first HC char died in A1 Normal.
>
>But you said "There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo
>..."

And there was no way I should have died in A1 Normal. It was sheer
carelessness. That and the fact that I had just got through making
six slayers and a matriarch.

>>>And FYI, I lost a 700+ life Wolf (L24) in the CS on Friday night. No it
>>>wasn't IM either. It was my fat fingers hitting the esc key while trying
>>>to
>>>drink potions and not being able to react to it fast enough. Everybody
>>>dies
>>>in HC occasionally.
>>
>> Been there, done that, too.
>
>But you said "There is no way a HC BF sassy should be dying to Normal Diablo
>..."

First, I did allow for lag and bone cage deaths. Second, it should go
without saying that hitting the wrong key is also a dumb way to lose a
HC char. I make no excuses for losing chars that way. I shouldn't
have made that mistake and it was completely my fault, end of story.

>How can you say with one breath that no one should die to normal Diablo,
>then admit that you have done so too?

?? I did _not_ say no one should die to normal Diablo. I said a HC
BF sassy should not. And most of the times I have lost HC chars to
Normal Diablo, _I_ should not have done so, either.

>Your comment was pompous, arrogant and
>completely out of line. And even though Kasmir only lurks here, I feel you
>owe him an apology.

Sorry, Kasmir. Re-reading what I posted, I agree that it was badly
said, and came off a little harsh.

>>>Yup, it sure is cheezy. But it's part of the game. Just like twinking up
>>>low
>>>level character with uber gear to speed their early leveling. Like you
>>>admit
>>>to doing a few threads down (Angelic jewelry combined with Hsuru's or
>>>Arcana's was your favorite as I recall).
>>
>> I wouldn't exactly call low-level sets "uber" gear. And their main
>> effect is enhanced safety, not instant xp steamroller.
>
>Oh bullshit. Put Angelic and Iratha's on a low level character and they'll
>steamroll their way through the game. They'll be mini gods. With absolutely
>no chance of dying, and facing no challenge. No different than an Enchanted
>character.

Nope. They simply will _not_ be able to do anything like the kind of
damage a chanted char can do, nor will they have the AR. Plus they
will have to fight monsters until they can _wear_ that gear, not own
Normal right from clvl 1.

>>>So what's your point? It's just a
>>>matter of degrees.
>>
>> I agree. Just like soup that is too salty is just a matter of degree.
>> But that doesn't mean it wasn't a _mistake_ to put so much salt in it.
>
>You proved my point. There's no difference between Twinking and Enchanting
>other than personal taste. If one is bad, both are bad.

?? And if there was a "skill" that caused all the monsters in an area
to die, giving you triple xp, that would be OK, too? That wouldn't
unbalance the game?

>>>If you're going to take the challenge out of the early
>>>game with items, how can you then condemn others for doing it with
>>>Enchant?
>>>Pot>Kettel>Black
>>
>> Obviously, twinking reduces the challenge. But it doesn't make all
>> monsters fall down at the mere sight of you. And there is a challenge
>> in getting the twinking items in the first place.
>
>Are you saying I didn't have to work to build my Enchantress in the first
>place?

All the chars you enchant didn't. And twink gear can only be worn by
one char at a time. Enchantresses can go from game to game, making
every physical damage char in Normal and NM a god.

>How is that different than you having to work initially to find your
>items? Once again, the two are absolutely congruent.

See above. There are similarities, but also clear differences.

>> I guess part of my beef with chant is that it is just one more point
>> where the MP game has been made so easy, compared to SP and solo play.
>
>Careful you don't pull a hamstring with all that back tracking.
>
>Multiplayer is a completely different game than true SP. Like comparing
>Classic to LoD. Enchant is the least of the problems.

I agree there are other problems, but Enchant is a major one that was
pretty much introduced by 1.10.

>> Getting to the sweet spots to level to 25 is the key. And getting the
>> wps immediately.
>
>Who said anything about getting WPs,

?? I did. Remember this:

"You can take any new char into a full chant game and
with just a plain vanilla short bow and a char to give wps, own pretty
much all of Normal, and level to near 30, in under an hour."

>>the discussion was about Enchant.

?? At that point, it was about using chant to power level, which
requires getting wps.

>If
>you want to expand the discussion to 'Rushing' that's another discussion.

It's also another thing. Rushing doesn't stack on a zillion unearned
xp.

>FYI, we played a group of new characters last night with Enchant. Five
>players, a Chanter, and two fillers. We made it into the beginning of A3,
>L22, in slightly over two hours. A far cry from your claim of 'level to near
>30, in under an hour'. You must be much better at this than we are. Care to
>share your wisdom oh Cheezemaster?

Wps.

>>>Enchanted characters are glass cannons. They can kill things left, center
>>>and right. But they die very easily. I think it's a fair trade off.
>>
>> And I think it's cheesy and especially _unbalanced_.
>
>And I think equipping a low level character with Angelic and Iratha's is
>cheezy and especially unbalanced.

For one thing, you can't wear Angelic and Iratha's until you've
already leveled to 15. For another, even _both_ sets (which would be
incomparably harder to put together than a maxed enchantress) won't
give you effectively infinite damage and AR.

>At least my Wolf, who was only equipped with what he could pick up on the
>run (mostly white items, a couple blues and no rares or uniques), had a
>chance to die. Your Twinkie is invulnerable, MUCH more cheezy.

Oh, nonsense. Lots of twinked chars die. And they have to actually
do some fighting to kill monsters.

>>>> There is something seriously bogus about a level
>>>> 1 mule char being able to virtually one-hit Normal Act bosses.
>>>
>>>Once again, how is this significantly different than twinked out low level
>>>characters.
>>
>> It is _very_ different. A good chant can down Normal Duriel before he
>> even gets a hit in, especially with a summoner.
>
>I counted 5 hits for us to kill Duriel last night. And he got a hit back on
>me too.

?? And you don't count that as cheesy?

>Additionally we had to survive the initial charge.

Minions take care of that little problem.

>A character
>wearing mostly nonmagical items is at considerably more risk than your
>Twinked out godling.

But does incomparably more damage. And FYI I _lost_ a twinked
"godling" to Normal Duriel last week.

>>>Remember, I killed Andy at L3 and Baal at L8 with twinkies. I
>>>see very little difference between twinking and Chanting.
>>
>> TWinking, at least in theory, has to be earned by getting the items.
>> Chant is just a free xp machine.
>
>Once again, I worked to build my Enchantress just as much as you worked to
>find your items.

But the players you chant didn't.

>And it's no different me sharing my Enchant with others, as
>you sharing your items with others. The two are perfectly analogous.

It's a matter of degree. The enchantress can make dozens of godlings.
The twinks took far more work to put together, and can only make one
at a time. And even then, the twinked char still has to do some
fighting to level, and not just look at the monsters sideways right
from clvl 1.

>>>Besides, what does it matter? We've both played this game for years. Is it
>>>that much of a sin to take a shortcut through normal to get to NM?
>>
>> No, my complaint is with the faulty design of the game, not the people
>> who take advantage of it.
>
>Your expectations of a perfectly balanced, and perfectly designed game are
>totally unrealistic Roy.

I didn't say I expected perfection.

>You continually criticize Blizzard for their
>designs.

For their design errors. They made major changes to the game with
1.10, and IMO most of them were good. But they also made some that
were extreme and unbalancing, including chant, and there was no good
reason for it.

>>>Personally it takes me an average of about 2 hours/act to quest a
>>>character,
>>>getting all the quests and WPs. Do I really have to spend the approximate
>>>10
>>>hours to work a character through normal difficulty to measure up in your
>>>eyes? Normal difficulty is boring, it poses very little challenge to me.
>>>Must I REALLY endure all its tedium in order to get to a fun part of the
>>>game?
>>
>> In SP, you have no choice.
>
>Oh bullshit. There's the '-ActX' parameter.

I've never used it, but I do agree it does give you a choice. My
mistake.

>Or map seeds. Or editors. Or
>TCP/IP games. Or Open.

I also agree there are many ways to cheat and cheese in SP that are
not available on the realms.

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On 23 Mar 2005 06:33:34 -0800, "Orion Ryder" <orionryder@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>3) I was under the impression that the object of the game was to

A1) Have fun!

If everyone is honest about their playing styles, than others can
choose whether or not they feel playing with another playing style
character is what they want to do (such as No-twink or pure gaming
groups).
March 23, 2005 11:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241b210.4354450@news.telus.net...
>
> Yes. Team play is incomparably safer and easier than soloing,
> especially in HC. The fact that it is _so_ much easier, and that you
> actually get _more_ xp for it, is IMO unbalanced.

This is patently false. The formula for total experience with more than one
player in the game is [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the
game and X is the base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for
being in a party. Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would
get 1/n of this total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game (to
make the numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
the same monster solo would net the character X experience.

Care to rant again Roy?

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:10:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:49:11 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241b210.4354450@news.telus.net...
>>
>> Yes. Team play is incomparably safer and easier than soloing,
>> especially in HC. The fact that it is _so_ much easier, and that you
>> actually get _more_ xp for it, is IMO unbalanced.
>
>This is patently false.

No, it is an observed fact.

>The formula for total experience with more than one
>player in the game is [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the
>game and X is the base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for
>being in a party. Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would
>get 1/n of this total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game (to
>make the numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
>Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
>the same monster solo would net the character X experience.
>
>Care to rant again Roy?

I really don't care what the "formula" allegedly is. It just doesn't
work that way in reality. The far faster leveling everone can
experience for themselves in big run games is not just an artifact of
the faster killing, it's produced by an actual xp imbalance in favor
of partied chars.

There is an AB ironman team in NM A5 that has full-cleared the game,
and they are at higher clvl than my ironman trapper, who also
full-cleared, was at the same place. And it has been that way since
A1 Normal. Got that, Mark? The team is at higher clvl, and has been
all along, full-clearing every single area just as the solo char did.
That's not an alleged formula taken from some putative authority.
That's an observed _fact_.

Care to explain that fact, Mark?

-- Roy L
March 24, 2005 2:44:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241f4d2.21447090@news.telus.net...
>
>>> Yes. Team play is incomparably safer and easier than soloing,
>>> especially in HC. The fact that it is _so_ much easier, and that you
>>> actually get _more_ xp for it, is IMO unbalanced.
>>
>>This is patently false.
>
> No, it is an observed fact.

Observation base on faulty premises do not constitute fact.

>>The formula for total experience with more than one
>>player in the game is [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the
>>game and X is the base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for
>>being in a party. Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would
>>get 1/n of this total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game
>>(to
>>make the numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
>>Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
>>the same monster solo would net the character X experience.
>>
>>Care to rant again Roy?
>
> I really don't care what the "formula" allegedly is. It just doesn't
> work that way in reality. The far faster leveling everone can
> experience for themselves in big run games is not just an artifact of
> the faster killing, it's produced by an actual xp imbalance in favor
> of partied chars.
>
> There is an AB ironman team in NM A5 that has full-cleared the game,
> and they are at higher clvl than my ironman trapper, who also
> full-cleared, was at the same place. And it has been that way since
> A1 Normal. Got that, Mark? The team is at higher clvl, and has been
> all along, full-clearing every single area just as the solo char did.
> That's not an alleged formula taken from some putative authority.
> That's an observed _fact_.
>
> Care to explain that fact, Mark?

Every game has a different density of monsters. Some games the monsters are
quite thick, while in others theory are somewhat spotty (this relates to
the -seed parameter available in SP). Additionally, each game has a
different mix of monsters, who give differing amounts of experience. Of
course you can find an example purportedly proving that a statistical
anomaly is in actually reality. For example, I have a friend who has six
toes on her left foot. By your logic, I could use her as proof that all
humans have six toes.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 24, 2005 2:50:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"Chris Lansdell" <clansdell@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:KOm0e.4067$Ln.179647@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> Mark is missing something: you also get XP from party member's kills. This
> will allow for faster levelling, unless they don't kill anything.

Playing the game at a faster pace is different than gaining more experience
for playing multiplayer. And Blizzard has taken this dynamic into their
design by giving less experience for large parties, to counterbalance the
faster pace.

> Why can't you two just get along?

You may find it interesting to sit around and sing Kumbya, I find it boring.

"... it's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry ..."

Just because I disagree strongly with someone, and argue vociferously, does
not mean that I harbor animosity. I find vigorous debate interesting. YMMV

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:50:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:50:44 +0000, Mark wrote:

>
> "Chris Lansdell" <clansdell@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:KOm0e.4067$Ln.179647@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>
>> Mark is missing something: you also get XP from party member's kills. This
>> will allow for faster levelling, unless they don't kill anything.
>
> Playing the game at a faster pace is different than gaining more experience
> for playing multiplayer. And Blizzard has taken this dynamic into their
> design by giving less experience for large parties, to counterbalance the
> faster pace.

What Jabber is trying to say is that you gave a formula for how
much XP a player gets from a single kill and apparently used it
to argue against the claim that leveling is much faster in MP.
Such an argument is misleading because in multiplayer you are
simultaneously gaining XP from the whole party's kills which are
made using the whole party's combined firepower. There is
also a different point about the density of available XP per area, to
explain why /players 8 sometimes helps with leveling in SP, but that point
is much less important than the observation that MP lets you gain XP from
other peoples kills when you are partied and nearbye.
March 24, 2005 6:07:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@hooya.co.nz> wrote in message
news:424219d3$2@news01.wxnz.net...
>
> Just a comment here. Isn't there a higher density of monsters with higher
> hit-points in a many-player game? Would this not explain the difference in
> clvl you have observed? Whenever I can I try to quest in games with other
> characters in them. Even if I'm not partied (which I'm usually not) I get
> more, harder-to-kill monsters and correspondingly more experience.

No, monster density has nothing to do with players in the game. Density is a
random variable. MP makes the monsters tougher, and each individual monster
gives more experience (as per the previous formula).

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 24, 2005 6:07:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"Last2Know" <grokkalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.03.24.00.05.07.167646@yahoo.com...
>
> What Jabber is trying to say is that you gave a formula for how
> much XP a player gets from a single kill and apparently used it
> to argue against the claim that leveling is much faster in MP.
> Such an argument is misleading because in multiplayer you are
> simultaneously gaining XP from the whole party's kills which are
> made using the whole party's combined firepower. There is
> also a different point about the density of available XP per area, to
> explain why /players 8 sometimes helps with leveling in SP, but that point
> is much less important than the observation that MP lets you gain XP from
> other peoples kills when you are partied and nearbye.

Roy's original comment was that you get more experience playing MP. This is
not true, as I proved. You are able to play at a faster pace in MP. And
hence you can earn more experience per unit time. But it's a function of
game pace, not MP. Similarly, you can earn more experience per unit time by
soloing in large games (or use /playersX in SP).

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 24, 2005 6:09:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241f8cc.22465163@news.telus.net...
>
>>So, basically, anyone that plays the game in any way that's at all
>>different from the way that you choose to play it is "cheesy" and
>>"unbalanced".
>>
>>Good to know.
>
> <sigh> Too bad you can't read.

I think he has it right. It's YOU that needs to go back and read what you
wrote.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:01:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

I would like to announce that the Cult of Cheesytology is in existence.
We have 8 million members and are growing fast.

We are in total support of Cheese and we want to spread Cheese to the
entire world, whether they want it or not.

We all know the name of the creator of this Cult. But I am sure nobody
has the balls to make a character with that name. In honor of the
creator I could have named our enchantress LronShythed, but it did not
cross my mind at the time.

Since Roy is against the Cult of Cheesytology I can only assume, per
cult dogma, that he would have to go through some heavy duty brain
washing to see that the Cult methods are the methods that should be
extant throughout all of civilization.

So everybody who sees the light and agrees that Cheese is the way can
consider themselves part of the Cult of Cheesytology, whether they want
to or not.

Long Live Cheese!

Orion Ryder
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 11:09:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

Heavens NO!

The only requirement is that a member have that quality inherent in all
easliy indoctrinated and docile individuals.

Upon seeing the message log "Cheese outside Rogue Encampment" said
adherents will immediatley leave their location whether they be in
Tristram, Claw Viper Temple, or even in battle with the Ancients and 1)
TP to town, 2) WP to Rogue, if not there already 3) stop to raise merc
if currently deceased 4) summon any minions that are not previously
summoned and do not require monster corpse and finally 5) proceed to
the Blood Moor immediately outside the Camp.

Upon arrival there they will then stand still and allow chanter
(Cheeser) to baptise adherent and minions with cheese to utmost
ability.

Upon completion of the cheesing, gratitude is then shown by typing "ty"
or some other form to show thankfullness.

An individual with post graduate degree will not be refused entry into
the cult, however for sucessful application of Cheesiology, the
knowledge obtained along with the degree is not used. In other words
"It does not take a rocket scientist to, . . .etc., etc."

If anything one must forsake all other knowledge and allow the
Scripture of the Cult of Cheesytology to rule the entire gaming
structure and future builds and quests that one undertakes.

Welcome to the Cult of Cheesytology!

Where eternal cheese awaits for all eternity!

Orion Ryder
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 11:16:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:07:31 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

>"Last2Know" <grokkalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:p an.2005.03.24.00.05.07.167646@yahoo.com...
>>
>> What Jabber is trying to say is that you gave a formula for how
>> much XP a player gets from a single kill and apparently used it
>> to argue against the claim that leveling is much faster in MP.
>> Such an argument is misleading because in multiplayer you are
>> simultaneously gaining XP from the whole party's kills which are
>> made using the whole party's combined firepower. There is
>> also a different point about the density of available XP per area, to
>> explain why /players 8 sometimes helps with leveling in SP, but that point
>> is much less important than the observation that MP lets you gain XP from
>> other peoples kills when you are partied and nearbye.
>
>Roy's original comment was that you get more experience playing MP. This is
>not true, as I proved.

You did no such thing. You gave a formula that you _claimed_ was a
complete description of how xp is awarded to team members. But there
is nothing to say that formula is accurate or complete. I provided
_actual_observations_ that showed more xp/char-area cleared being
awarded to a big team than a solo. And I have played enough
full-clear chars to know that the amount of xp spawned per area just
_doesn't_ vary that much from game to game.

>You are able to play at a faster pace in MP. And
>hence you can earn more experience per unit time.

Far more. That is also true, but it's a separate issue from the
matter of big teams getting more xp than the same number of players
clearing the same area in solo play.

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 11:27:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:44:45 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241f4d2.21447090@news.telus.net...
>>
>>>> Yes. Team play is incomparably safer and easier than soloing,
>>>> especially in HC. The fact that it is _so_ much easier, and that you
>>>> actually get _more_ xp for it, is IMO unbalanced.
>>>
>>>This is patently false.
>>
>> No, it is an observed fact.
>
>Observation base on faulty premises do not constitute fact.

?? What "faulty premises"? The numbers are what they are --
incontrovertible facts of objective reality -- independent of any
"premises." You can claim that there is some other reason for those
numbers to be what they are, but they are still absolute facts that
you need to explain. And you haven't.

>>>The formula for total experience with more than one
>>>player in the game is [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the
>>>game and X is the base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for
>>>being in a party. Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would
>>>get 1/n of this total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game
>>>(to
>>>make the numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
>>>Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
>>>the same monster solo would net the character X experience.
>>>
>>>Care to rant again Roy?
>>
>> I really don't care what the "formula" allegedly is. It just doesn't
>> work that way in reality. The far faster leveling everone can
>> experience for themselves in big run games is not just an artifact of
>> the faster killing, it's produced by an actual xp imbalance in favor
>> of partied chars.
>>
>> There is an AB ironman team in NM A5 that has full-cleared the game,
>> and they are at higher clvl than my ironman trapper, who also
>> full-cleared, was at the same place. And it has been that way since
>> A1 Normal. Got that, Mark? The team is at higher clvl, and has been
>> all along, full-clearing every single area just as the solo char did.
>> That's not an alleged formula taken from some putative authority.
>> That's an observed _fact_.
>>
>> Care to explain that fact, Mark?
>
>Every game has a different density of monsters. Some games the monsters are
>quite thick, while in others theory are somewhat spotty (this relates to
>the -seed parameter available in SP).

Such variations are far too slight to explain an observed xp
difference that big.

>Additionally, each game has a
>different mix of monsters, who give differing amounts of experience.

But full-clearing solo chars will end up at the same clvl at each Act
boss, with very little variation. I know, I've done it. Why is the
team's clvl higher?

>Of course you can find an example purportedly proving that a statistical
>anomaly is in actually reality. For example, I have a friend who has six
>toes on her left foot. By your logic, I could use her as proof that all
>humans have six toes.

Nonsense. But you might need to revise your claim that humans _don't_
have six toes.

You don't seem to have realized that the formula you gave might not be
the whole story, and there may be something else going on like
double-counting of shared xp among team members. It's not like
Blizzard has never made any such mistakes up to now.

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:35:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:07:31 +0000, Mark wrote:

>
> "Last2Know" <grokkalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.03.24.00.05.07.167646@yahoo.com...
>>
>> What Jabber is trying to say is that you gave a formula for how
>> much XP a player gets from a single kill and apparently used it
>> to argue against the claim that leveling is much faster in MP.
>> Such an argument is misleading because in multiplayer you are
>> simultaneously gaining XP from the whole party's kills which are
>> made using the whole party's combined firepower. There is
>> also a different point about the density of available XP per area, to
>> explain why /players 8 sometimes helps with leveling in SP, but that point
>> is much less important than the observation that MP lets you gain XP from
>> other peoples kills when you are partied and nearbye.
>
> Roy's original comment was that you get more experience playing MP. This is
> not true, as I proved. You are able to play at a faster pace in MP. And
> hence you can earn more experience per unit time. But it's a function of
> game pace, not MP. Similarly, you can earn more experience per unit time by
> soloing in large games (or use /playersX in SP).

I see what you are saying, but Roy's original comment was in the
context of a complaint that Blizz made MP too easy compared to
SP, so the fact that one can level faster per unit time in MP
is the more important consideration to fit with that argument
(assuming in the alternative that Roy was interested in pressing
that argument rather some obscure technical issue). I would
agree with his point on that if I cared one way or the other
(which I don't). From the POV of HC, I think soloing makes things
easier in some ways because one is less tempted to do stupid
things when soloing. For instance, I really can't remember the
last time I died facing an Act Boss in either HC or SC (it may
have been back in 1.09 or it may have been messing around MF'ing
in 1.10), but I would attribute that to the fact that I have
soloed a high percentage of the time.
March 24, 2005 6:27:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42427896.55184639@news.telus.net...
>
>>Observation base on faulty premises do not constitute fact.
>
> ?? What "faulty premises"?

One observed case is statistically significant.

>>Every game has a different density of monsters. Some games the monsters
>>are
>>quite thick, while in others theory are somewhat spotty (this relates to
>>the -seed parameter available in SP).
>
> Such variations are far too slight to explain an observed xp
> difference that big.

Bullshit. I've seen the difference and it's striking. Look back when cow
runs were king in 1.09. Some games there were tons of cows, others they were
much less. People in public games even went so far as to bitch that you had
to use a full TP tome to make the portal so the 'seed' would be better
(conclusions made through statistically insignificant observation). I've
seen the same variations in monster density recently when doing public chant
games. In some games you can't take 3 steps without running into swarms of
monsters. Other times you run all over the place to only find scattered
groups. Some games I could play the whole chant without using a single
stamina potion, the next game I'd use several do to having to run so much to
find monsters.-

>>Additionally, each game has a
>>different mix of monsters, who give differing amounts of experience.
>
> But full-clearing solo chars will end up at the same clvl at each Act
> boss, with very little variation. I know, I've done it. Why is the
> team's clvl higher?

Many variables exist. To discount all of these variables and claim your
theory is the reason is myopic.

> You don't seem to have realized that the formula you gave might not be
> the whole story, and there may be something else going on like
> double-counting of shared xp among team members. It's not like
> Blizzard has never made any such mistakes up to now.

Sorry, but given past performance, I trust Blizzard over another one of your
wild theories. Unless you can provided some statistically valid proof.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 24, 2005 6:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"Orion Ryder" <orionryder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111672892.992697.279110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>

One question. Does it require a post graduate degree to become a certified
Cheeziologist?

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 8:26:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241f4d2.21447090@news.telus.net...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:49:11 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241b210.4354450@news.telus.net...
>>>
>>> Yes. Team play is incomparably safer and easier than soloing,
>>> especially in HC. The fact that it is _so_ much easier, and that you
>>> actually get _more_ xp for it, is IMO unbalanced.
>>
>>This is patently false.
>
> No, it is an observed fact.
>
>>The formula for total experience with more than one
>>player in the game is [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the
>>game and X is the base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for
>>being in a party. Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would
>>get 1/n of this total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game
>>(to
>>make the numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
>>Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
>>the same monster solo would net the character X experience.
>>
>>Care to rant again Roy?
>
> I really don't care what the "formula" allegedly is. It just doesn't
> work that way in reality. The far faster leveling everone can
> experience for themselves in big run games is not just an artifact of
> the faster killing, it's produced by an actual xp imbalance in favor
> of partied chars.
>
> There is an AB ironman team in NM A5 that has full-cleared the game,
> and they are at higher clvl than my ironman trapper, who also
> full-cleared, was at the same place. And it has been that way since
> A1 Normal. Got that, Mark? The team is at higher clvl, and has been
> all along, full-clearing every single area just as the solo char did.
> That's not an alleged formula taken from some putative authority.
> That's an observed _fact_.
>
> Care to explain that fact, Mark?
>
> -- Roy L

I don't get into the numbers much, I just play for fun, but if Mark's
reported formula is correct, it stands to reason the since the multiplayer
group that you mentioned were partied, that there would be 35% more
experience available than playing solo at the same number of player setting.
They SHOULD be at a higher character level as a natural consequence of that,
I think. Yes, No, Maybe? :-)

Ruben
March 25, 2005 7:13:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bDk0e.17724$I16.2672@trndny03...

It appears that I was wrong about the party experience. I did some searching
and I found a year old thread on the AB, which references a thread on the
Phrozen Keep (the modders forum). The discussion goes way over my head real
quick, with a lot of game code involved. As near as I can tell, this is how
it works.

> The formula for total experience with more than one player in the game is
> [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the game and X is the
> base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for being in a party.

The actual bonus is 89/256, about 34.7%. And it is not for the party, but
per player in the party. So the formula is:
[(1+n)/2]*X*[1+(89/256)*(p-1)]
where n is the number of players in the game, p is the number of players in
the party (within 2 screens of the kill), and X is the base experience for
the monster.

> Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would get 1/n of this
> total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game (to make the
> numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.

Which becomes [(1+7)/2*X]/7 * [1+(89/256)*6)] = 1.76X
So you get about 76% more experience for killing a monster in a 7 member
party as you would for the same monster playing solo.

> Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
> the same monster solo would net the character X experience.

I can't find anything about the 10% kill bonus, this must be a remnant of
previous versions of the game.

So for a few game and party sizes the experience is:
2/2 = 1.011X
4/4 = 1.277X
6/6 = 1.597X
8/8 = 1.931X
8/4 = 2.298X
8/2 = 3.032X
8/1 = 4.5X
6/1 = 3.5X
4/1 = 2.5X
Which shows that the bigger the party, the more experience you earn. But the
most experience is gained by soloing in full games.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 5:27:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:EdM0e.19417$ed6.904@trndny06...
>
> "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bDk0e.17724$I16.2672@trndny03...
>
> It appears that I was wrong about the party experience. I did some
> searching and I found a year old thread on the AB, which references a
> thread on the Phrozen Keep (the modders forum). The discussion goes way
> over my head real quick, with a lot of game code involved. As near as I
> can tell, this is how it works.
>
>> The formula for total experience with more than one player in the game is
>> [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the game and X is the
>> base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for being in a party.
>
> The actual bonus is 89/256, about 34.7%. And it is not for the party, but
> per player in the party. So the formula is:
> [(1+n)/2]*X*[1+(89/256)*(p-1)]
> where n is the number of players in the game, p is the number of players
> in the party (within 2 screens of the kill), and X is the base experience
> for the monster.
>
>> Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would get 1/n of this
>> total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game (to make the
>> numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
>
> Which becomes [(1+7)/2*X]/7 * [1+(89/256)*6)] = 1.76X
> So you get about 76% more experience for killing a monster in a 7 member
> party as you would for the same monster playing solo.
>
>> Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While
>> killing the same monster solo would net the character X experience.
>
> I can't find anything about the 10% kill bonus, this must be a remnant of
> previous versions of the game.
>
> So for a few game and party sizes the experience is:
> 2/2 = 1.011X
> 4/4 = 1.277X
> 6/6 = 1.597X
> 8/8 = 1.931X
> 8/4 = 2.298X
> 8/2 = 3.032X
> 8/1 = 4.5X
> 6/1 = 3.5X
> 4/1 = 2.5X
> Which shows that the bigger the party, the more experience you earn. But
> the most experience is gained by soloing in full games.
>
> Regards-
> Mark
>
> Bongo-Fury

Sounds complicated (my head spins from just READING it, to say nothing of
trying to UNDERSTAND it!). I prefer to think of it in the terms of :
Stick knife into monster, observe results, repeat as necessary. When
monster is a bloody mess on the ground, move on the next monster, and do it
again [Grin]

Ruben
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 5:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:13:24 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

>"Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:bDk0e.17724$I16.2672@trndny03...
>
>It appears that I was wrong about the party experience. I did some searching
>and I found a year old thread on the AB, which references a thread on the
>Phrozen Keep (the modders forum). The discussion goes way over my head real
>quick, with a lot of game code involved. As near as I can tell, this is how
>it works.
>
>> The formula for total experience with more than one player in the game is
>> [(1+n)/2]*X, where n is the number of players in the game and X is the
>> base experience. Additionally, you get a 35% bonus for being in a party.
>
>The actual bonus is 89/256, about 34.7%. And it is not for the party, but
>per player in the party. So the formula is:
>[(1+n)/2]*X*[1+(89/256)*(p-1)]
>where n is the number of players in the game, p is the number of players in
>the party (within 2 screens of the kill), and X is the base experience for
>the monster.
>
>> Each individual (assuming they are the same level) would get 1/n of this
>> total experience. So if there are 7 players in the game (to make the
>> numbers work easily) you would get [(1+7)/2 X]/7 +35%, or .771X.
>
>Which becomes [(1+7)/2*X]/7 * [1+(89/256)*6)] = 1.76X
>So you get about 76% more experience for killing a monster in a 7 member
>party as you would for the same monster playing solo.
>
>> Add 10% if your character makes the killing blow, for .848X. While killing
>> the same monster solo would net the character X experience.
>
>I can't find anything about the 10% kill bonus, this must be a remnant of
>previous versions of the game.
>
>So for a few game and party sizes the experience is:
>2/2 = 1.011X
>4/4 = 1.277X
>6/6 = 1.597X
>8/8 = 1.931X
>8/4 = 2.298X
>8/2 = 3.032X
>8/1 = 4.5X
>6/1 = 3.5X
>4/1 = 2.5X
>Which shows that the bigger the party, the more experience you earn. But the
>most experience is gained by soloing in full games.

Thanks for the gracious apology, Mark...

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 6:39:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:48:52 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4241a56e.1119634@news.telus.net...
>>
>>>Oh bullshit. Put Angelic and Iratha's on a low level character and they'll
>>>steamroll their way through the game. They'll be mini gods. With
>>>absolutely
>>>no chance of dying, and facing no challenge. No different than an
>>>Enchanted
>>>character.
>>
>> Nope. They simply will _not_ be able to do anything like the kind of
>> damage a chanted char can do, nor will they have the AR. Plus they
>> will have to fight monsters until they can _wear_ that gear, not own
>> Normal right from clvl 1.
>
>The chanted character is a glass cannon, while the A&I twinkie is an armored
>tank. Both are unbalanced. To claim one is less cheezy than the other is
>bullshit.

If people were being _given_ complete Angelic and Iratha sets all the
time in public games, you would have a point. But they aren't.

>Claiming that the twinkie has to wait to wear his gear is also bullshit.
>Take any first level character. Give them a 2 socket helm and armor, and a 3
>socket bow. Fill all the 7 sockets with Envy (20/2 poison) jewels. They'll
>rip through A1 indistingushibly from a chantee.

?? How much work do you think it would take to put together that kind
of rig? Especially compared to just going into a public chant game.

>This doesn't even take into
>consideration what you could twink in their gloves, belt, boots, jewelry and
>charm spots. There's no difference in cheeze between a chantee and a
>twinkie.

The difference is in how hard it is to get. You can go into a public
chant game any time and own Normal. You can't, repeat, _can't_ put
together twinks of comparable power without a _lot_ of work.

>> ?? And if there was a "skill" that caused all the monsters in an area
>> to die, giving you triple xp, that would be OK, too? That wouldn't
>> unbalance the game?
>
>If it's part of the game, it's a part of the game. And it's no more/less
>cheezy than any other legitimate tactic.

?? You're not even on the right page with a comment like that.
Whatever Blizzard decides to do is by defintion best for the game and
most enjoyable for the players? Get real.

>>>Are you saying I didn't have to work to build my Enchantress in the first
>>>place?
>>
>> All the chars you enchant didn't. And twink gear can only be worn by
>> one char at a time. Enchantresses can go from game to game, making
>> every physical damage char in Normal and NM a god.
>
>Going from game to game implies public games. Are you saying playing public
>chant games (above level 8) is not EXTREMELY dangerous for a Chantee?

Up to clvl 9 (about what, 10 minutes play with chant?) it's perfectly
safe. And in SC it stays safe forever.

>And
>it's not very dangerous for the Chanter as well? In my experience it's MUCH
>more dangerous than playing a heavily twinked character in private.

No kidding?

>>>How is that different than you having to work initially to find your
>>>items? Once again, the two are absolutely congruent.
>>
>> See above. There are similarities, but also clear differences.
>
>But no differences that make the two cases incomparable. Face it, one is
>Cheddar and the other is Brie.

More like Camembert and CheezWiz.

>> It's also another thing. Rushing doesn't stack on a zillion unearned
>> xp.
>
>I guess you've never seen 'free cow' games, or people leeching in Baal runs.
>No, those things NEVER happen. People earn all their experience.

That's not rushing in the usual sense. But I agree that the xp
sharing formula also enables and encourages cheesing such as you
describe.

>>>And I think equipping a low level character with Angelic and Iratha's is
>>>cheezy and especially unbalanced.
>>
>> For one thing, you can't wear Angelic and Iratha's until you've
>> already leveled to 15. For another, even _both_ sets (which would be
>> incomparably harder to put together than a maxed enchantress) won't
>> give you effectively infinite damage and AR.
>
>There's plenty of L1 twinks that will make a character just as overpowered
>as a Chantee. As I gave an example for above.

And how long would it take to put together such a rig, compared to a
simple maxed enchantress? And how many chars can use it at once?

>Building an Enchantress is not trivial. Maxing Enchant, Warmth and FM, and a
>Leaf Enchant stick only gives an Enchant that does 900-1000 fire damage (I
>know, I have one).

For almost any char in Normal but an ultra-twinked PK, that is godly
damage.

>Monsters in A4 normal take several shots to kill in large
>games with that level of Enchant. To get the Enchantress you mention that
>lets charactyers blitz through NM requires CONSIDERABLY more effort.
>Circlet, Ammy, SOJs, Skillers, Annialus, Armor, Fascets requires a LOT of
>effort to acquire. Low level twinkie gear is available very cheaply, a few
>perfs at most. Enchantress gear is in high demand, and is therefore very
>expensive.
>
>What planet are you playing on where Angelic rings don't add incredible
>amounts of AR? That's one of the main points of wearing them.

Angelic's AR works for the char who has it on, and doesn't help until
you _do_ have it on. Chant is good for everyone who gets chanted,
right from clvl 1.

>>>At least my Wolf, who was only equipped with what he could pick up on the
>>>run (mostly white items, a couple blues and no rares or uniques), had a
>>>chance to die. Your Twinkie is invulnerable, MUCH more cheezy.
>>
>> Oh, nonsense. Lots of twinked chars die. And they have to actually
>> do some fighting to kill monsters.
>
>You died with Angelic and Iratha's in A3 normal?

No, because such a rig is _way_too_hard_ to put together -- unlike a
fully synergized enchantress. I just used stuff I had lying around on
mules (and it was a sorc of 17 with half her skill points saved; not
that that is any excuse).

>>>> It is _very_ different. A good chant can down Normal Duriel before he
>>>> even gets a hit in, especially with a summoner.
>>>
>>>I counted 5 hits for us to kill Duriel last night. And he got a hit back
>>>on
>>>me too.
>>
>> ?? And you don't count that as cheesy?
>
>Sure it's cheezy, I've said it repeatedly. I was refuting your comment "A
>good chant can down Normal Duriel before he even gets a hit in".

"Didn't do it that one time" doesn't refute "can."

>>>Additionally we had to survive the initial charge.
>>
>> Minions take care of that little problem.
>
>Except in the example cited, the first two folks down had no minions. But
>irregardless, how does having minions make a difference if the chatacter is
>a Twinkie or a Chantee? Other than the fact that the Twinkie probably has a
>lot more minions due to + skills gear.

But they _don't_do_any_damage_ compared to the _enchanted_ minions of
a _naked_ char.

>>>Once again, I worked to build my Enchantress just as much as you worked to
>>> >>find your items.
>>
>> But the players you chant didn't.
>
>And your wife/kids/friends didn't 'earn' the items you gave them either.

They earned other ones they gave me.

>Once again, the analogy seems to fit perfectly.

Nope.

>>>And it's no different me sharing my Enchant with others, as
>>>you sharing your items with others. The two are perfectly analogous.
>>
>> It's a matter of degree. The enchantress can make dozens of godlings.
>> The twinks took far more work to put together, and can only make one
>> at a time. And even then, the twinked char still has to do some
>> fighting to level, and not just look at the monsters sideways right
>> from clvl 1.
>
>Your twinks are recycled from character to character. One set of
>Angelic's/Iratha's can help dozens of newbies get through normal difficulty.

Not all at the same time.

>The analogy hold once again.

Nope.

>>>Your expectations of a perfectly balanced, and perfectly designed game are
>>>totally unrealistic Roy.
>>
>> I didn't say I expected perfection.
>
>Then why do you make such a big deal about every problem?

How is identifying design errors "making a big deal"? Blizzard made a
bad design choice that made the game worse, and they deserve a
dressing down for it. End of story.

>And every problem
>is due to incompetence.

There are different kinds of incompetence. Being too full of yourself
to listen to players is a big one for game designers.

>>>You continually criticize Blizzard for their
>>>designs.
>>
>> For their design errors. They made major changes to the game with
>> 1.10, and IMO most of them were good. But they also made some that
>> were extreme and unbalancing, including chant, and there was no good
>> reason for it.
>
>Enchant was a totally useless skill from version 1.00 through 1.09. So they
>pumped it up a little. Unfortunately they went a little too far. I see that
>as an 'oops', not some major, incompetent design flaw.

Overcompensating errors is another kind of incompetence. Why not just
make chant damage dependent on the chantee's clvl? Simple.

-- Roy L
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 10:32:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On that special day, , (royls@telus.net) said...

> Overcompensating errors is another kind of incompetence. Why not just
> make chant damage dependent on the chantee's clvl? Simple.

Not if the chantee is my lvl1 but "golem mastery" bumped CG.

It isn't *that* easy to determine, how much fire damage a clay golem is
supposed to deal in this game. How would you put this into the proper
balance?


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de


--
Patriarch Antenagenes, lvl89 SP Skelliemancer, might merc
Mathetic Fuchsia, lvl85 SP Firestrafer, conc merc (always dieing)
Slayer Malladictus, lvl60 SP Hammerdin, fire rogue
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 12:48:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:32:07 +0100, Gabriele Neukam
<Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de> wrote:

>On that special day, , (royls@telus.net) said...
>
>> Overcompensating errors is another kind of incompetence. Why not just
>> make chant damage dependent on the chantee's clvl? Simple.
>
>Not if the chantee is my lvl1 but "golem mastery" bumped CG.

His "level" for purposes of chant damage calculation is the casting
char's level. His golem mastery does not synergize with chant.

>It isn't *that* easy to determine, how much fire damage a clay golem is
>supposed to deal in this game. How would you put this into the proper
>balance?

I don't know about "proper" balance, but damage dependent on clvl is
an easy way to reduce imbalances for almost any attack skill.

-- Roy L
March 26, 2005 3:36:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42442781.2497685@news.telus.net...
>
> Thanks for the gracious apology, Mark...

I've reread the entire post, and I don't see an apology anywhere. And I
spoke to the author and he said none was intended, nor necessary.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 26, 2005 3:36:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4244288a.2761929@news.telus.net...
>
>>The chanted character is a glass cannon, while the A&I twinkie is an
>>armored
>>tank. Both are unbalanced. To claim one is less cheezy than the other is
>>bullshit.
>
> If people were being _given_ complete Angelic and Iratha sets all the
> time in public games, you would have a point. But they aren't.

That's a strawman. Chant is popular, but so is twinking. Some chants are
5000 point monsters, others are less than 500. Some twinks are at godline
levels, others are very minor. But in all cases the junior character is
receiving a benefit that the game would not normally allow for their level.
Both methods are cheezy. To use one and look down your nose at the other is
hypocracy.

>>Claiming that the twinkie has to wait to wear his gear is also bullshit.
>>Take any first level character. Give them a 2 socket helm and armor, and a
>>3
>>socket bow. Fill all the 7 sockets with Envy (20/2 poison) jewels. They'll
>>rip through A1 indistingushibly from a chantee.
>
> ?? How much work do you think it would take to put together that kind
> of rig? Especially compared to just going into a public chant game.

I've been on west less than 2 weeks and I have 5 Envy jewely. I've lost at
least that many more when characters died. If I was interested in twinking
with them I could easily have put that kit together. It's an EASY thing to
do. As a comparison, OR is still building his basic chanter going on the
same two weeks. And he has even less gear for her than I have manage to put
together. Building a chanter is comparable to MFing twink gear.

>>This doesn't even take into
>>consideration what you could twink in their gloves, belt, boots, jewelry
>>and
>>charm spots. There's no difference in cheeze between a chantee and a
>>twinkie.
>
> The difference is in how hard it is to get. You can go into a public
> chant game any time and own Normal. You can't, repeat, _can't_ put
> together twinks of comparable power without a _lot_ of work.

Bullshit. Twinking gear to let a new character burn through normal is easy
to acquire.

>>If it's part of the game, it's a part of the game. And it's no more/less
>>cheezy than any other legitimate tactic.
>
> ?? You're not even on the right page with a comment like that.
> Whatever Blizzard decides to do is by defintion best for the game and
> most enjoyable for the players? Get real.

You're doing it again Roy. Just like your anti PK rant. Yes, Blizzard gets
to decide what is a legitimate tactic in their game. You may not like their
decision, but that does not make it wrong. Their game, their rules. So don't
come riding in on your high horse condemning people for playing the game
according to Blizzard's rules.

Especially when you use and advocate other 'cheezy' tactics.

>>Going from game to game implies public games. Are you saying playing
>>public
>>chant games (above level 8) is not EXTREMELY dangerous for a Chantee?
>
> Up to clvl 9 (about what, 10 minutes play with chant?) it's perfectly
> safe. And in SC it stays safe forever.

Well, we both know SC is only for the weak and stupid, so it doesn't really
matter. ;-)
<for the humor challenged, please note, this was meant as a joke>

>>And
>>it's not very dangerous for the Chanter as well? In my experience it's
>>MUCH
>>more dangerous than playing a heavily twinked character in private.
>
> No kidding?

No kidding. Public chant games are VERY dangerous. I've lost at least 2
characters to PKs for each one that makes it to A5. And I've probably lost
at least one more due to getting in too far over my head. Do you lose at
least 3 twinkies for every one that makes it to A5? If not, your cheeze
gives you a bigger advantage than chant gives me. And I humbly think I'm a
better than average player.

Additionally, in my 2 weeks on West playing public chant games I have seen
L63 and L78 Enchantresses PK'd with their own chants.

Yes, chanting is cheezy. But it is also very dangerous. I think it's a fair
balance.

>>But no differences that make the two cases incomparable. Face it, one is
>>Cheddar and the other is Brie.
>
> More like Camembert and CheezWiz.

Well, you can think you're a snob if you want. But even you admit cheeze is
cheeze.

> And how long would it take to put together such a rig, compared to a
> simple maxed enchantress? And how many chars can use it at once?

Well, about two hours to get to 25, and if you're lucky catch a ride to A5,
then sleeze Ancients. But you'll no doubt lose a few characters doing this.
So I'd estimate 8 hours. Then you have to survive the Baal runs. Being a
Sorc you're target #1 for the TPPKs. Level 25 to mid 40's is about another
hour or two. Then find a rush for forge game, and hope you don't get PK'd or
ripped off. Then Ancients and NM Baals. A pure Enchantress needs 62 skills,
a minimum of L53. So I'd say a minimum Enchantress would take 12 hours. With
mine, I spent an hour shopping Drognan for a Leafable stick and had to
settle for a +2 Enchant.

I'm not much of a MFer, but I'd imagine in this same amount of time you
could come up with quite a bit of Twink gear.

>>Building an Enchantress is not trivial. Maxing Enchant, Warmth and FM, and
>>a
>>Leaf Enchant stick only gives an Enchant that does 900-1000 fire damage (I
>>know, I have one).
>
> For almost any char in Normal but an ultra-twinked PK, that is godly
> damage.

So you agree that a twinked character is comparable to a chantee. LOL, I
noticed you had to throw that PK dig in. You just can't give it up can you?
But we both know that's a red herring. PK or not is immaterial to this
discussion.

>>You died with Angelic and Iratha's in A3 normal?
>
> No, because such a rig is _way_too_hard_ to put together -- unlike a
> fully synergized enchantress.

I must be quite lucky. Because I have 5 rings, 1 ammy, 2 armors and have
left more Sickles lying on the ground than I can count. As for Iratha's, I
have the crown and belt. Not bad in 2 weeks without even trying.

> I just used stuff I had lying around on
> mules (and it was a sorc of 17 with half her skill points saved; not
> that that is any excuse).

That's one of the things I like best about chantees. You can build your
character without comitting your skills. I do spend the ability points
though, usually after the chant wears off and before I go back for a
refresh.

>>Sure it's cheezy, I've said it repeatedly. I was refuting your comment "A
>>good chant can down Normal Duriel before he even gets a hit in".
>
> "Didn't do it that one time" doesn't refute "can."

Normal Duriel has just under 4000 life, with 20% fire resist. I've only seen
one Chanter on West that can give a 5k chant. And that character had TOP end
gear.

>>>>Additionally we had to survive the initial charge.
>>>
>>> Minions take care of that little problem.
>>
>>Except in the example cited, the first two folks down had no minions. But
>>irregardless, how does having minions make a difference if the chatacter
>>is
>>a Twinkie or a Chantee? Other than the fact that the Twinkie probably has
>>a
>>lot more minions due to + skills gear.
>
> But they _don't_do_any_damage_ compared to the _enchanted_ minions of
> a _naked_ char.

The question wasn't damage they do, it was protection they provide from the
charge. Your twinkie has more protection, if you can survive Duriel, killing
him is just a matter of tactics. Getting safely into the chamber and setting
a TP is the major battle. After than it's just a matter of time. If the
chantee can't survive Duriel, it doesn't matter how much damage they do.

>>And your wife/kids/friends didn't 'earn' the items you gave them either.
>
> They earned other ones they gave me.

So you only trade with your family members, never give each other presents
in the game?

>>Once again, the analogy seems to fit perfectly.
>
> Nope.

Not once, not ONCE, have you shown that the chantee/twinkie analogy is
invalid. It's simply a matter of opinion and degrees.

>>Your twinks are recycled from character to character. One set of
>>Angelic's/Iratha's can help dozens of newbies get through normal
>>difficulty.
>
> Not all at the same time.

So what? How is this relevant? It's only a matter of degree.

>>Then why do you make such a big deal about every problem?
>
> How is identifying design errors "making a big deal"? Blizzard made a
> bad design choice that made the game worse, and they deserve a
> dressing down for it. End of story.

Why is it always poor design then. Could be faulty implementation. Or
insufficient testing. Or any number of other problems. But with you it's
always poor design. Implying the problem is always at the top of the
pyramid. Sounds suspiciously like criticism from a frustrated designer
myself.

>>And every problem
>>is due to incompetence.
>
> There are different kinds of incompetence. Being too full of yourself
> to listen to players is a big one for game designers.

See, it's always the designers fault. Not programing, not QA, no, with Roy
it's always those damned designers.

>>Enchant was a totally useless skill from version 1.00 through 1.09. So
>>they
>>pumped it up a little. Unfortunately they went a little too far. I see
>>that
>>as an 'oops', not some major, incompetent design flaw.
>
> Overcompensating errors is another kind of incompetence. Why not just
> make chant damage dependent on the chantee's clvl? Simple.

OK, then show us your design ability. How do you do it, and I'm not just
talking in generalities? Exactly how? Do you do it as a ratio? (Chantee
level)/(Chanter level)? A L51 chanter can do as much damage as a L99. So
that won't work. Straight level? But how do you do that without penalizing
legitimate parties? Remember, Enchant is available at L18. So how would Roy
control Chant without relegating it again to a useless skill?

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
March 26, 2005 7:06:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@hooya.co.nz> wrote in message
news:D 22mf7$j5l$1@renew.usenet.net.nz...
>
>> Well, we both know SC is only for the weak and stupid, so it doesn't
>> really matter. ;-)
>> <for the humor challenged, please note, this was meant as a joke>
>
> Yep, fully realise it's a joke but next time you use it can you please
> include the category "or those unfortunate enough to have a *very* laggy
> connection"?

That's a lot to write, it'll really tax my attention span. How about 'people
in third world countries'?
;-)

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:56:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:36:04 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42442781.2497685@news.telus.net...
>>
>> Thanks for the gracious apology, Mark...
>
>I've reread the entire post, and I don't see an apology anywhere. And I
>spoke to the author and he said none was intended,

Ah.

>nor necessary.

So I owed Kasmir an apology for saying his BF sin shouldn't have died
to Normal Diablo, but you don't owe me one for _falsely_ claiming that
I was making stuff up about xp in MP vs solo play?

I think I begin to get the picture.

-- Roy L
March 26, 2005 10:33:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4245861b.662694@news.telus.net...
>
> So I owed Kasmir an apology for saying his BF sin shouldn't have died
> to Normal Diablo, but you don't owe me one for _falsely_ claiming that
> I was making stuff up about xp in MP vs solo play?
>
> I think I begin to get the picture.

You made a critical and condescending (IMO) comment about a new player. Who
I believe you have never even met.

I got my facts wrong in a discussion. Which I was man enough to admit to
(and correct) without having to be called on it.

One case warrants an apology, the other does not. IMO.

I've never seen you apologize when you get your facts wrong. I doubt if you
even make the effort to confirm that what you claim as fact is indeed so. I
know when folks repeatedly ask you to provide facts supporting your claims
you never come up with anything better than 'I just know'. And even though I
had my facts wrong about the experience formula, everything I said about the
invalidity of your anecdotal evidence is still true. Your couple Ironman
games versus ONE multiplayer game is statistically irrelevant. In fact it's
another prime example of your unwillingness/inability to back up your
statements with FACT. Now if YOU had gone to the AB and Phrozen Keep, and
come up with the correct formula ...

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 11:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:33:12 GMT, "Mark" <bongofury@verizon.net>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4245861b.662694@news.telus.net...
>>
>> So I owed Kasmir an apology for saying his BF sin shouldn't have died
>> to Normal Diablo, but you don't owe me one for _falsely_ claiming that
>> I was making stuff up about xp in MP vs solo play?
>>
>> I think I begin to get the picture.
>
>You made a critical and condescending (IMO) comment about a new player. Who
>I believe you have never even met.
>
>I got my facts wrong in a discussion.

And, let's not forget, accused me of fabricating claims and harboring
paranoid delusions because I got my facts correct...

>Which I was man enough to admit to
>(and correct) without having to be called on it.
>
>One case warrants an apology, the other does not. IMO.

I see.

So, IYO, would whatever one _you_ did _ever_ warrant an apology...?

>I've never seen you apologize when you get your facts wrong.

The following exchange occurred between us last September:

Quote on:

>> IMO the _majority_ of all HC
>> deaths pre-1.10 were due to PKs, and maybe even post-1.10. The
>> majority of mine certainly have been.

>No denying that TPPK is a big problem. But other than you I know of not one
>other person who loses a majority of their characters to PKs, either legit
>or hackers.

Sorry, I should have said, "in public games."

Quote off.

I got a fact wrong, and I apologized for it. End of story.

>I doubt if you
>even make the effort to confirm that what you claim as fact is indeed so. I
>know when folks repeatedly ask you to provide facts supporting your claims
>you never come up with anything better than 'I just know'.

That is a lie. But hey, no apology "necessary"...

>And even though I
>had my facts wrong about the experience formula, everything I said about the
>invalidity of your anecdotal evidence is still true.

Except for being false, that is....

>Your couple Ironman
>games versus ONE multiplayer game is statistically irrelevant.

It wasn't just a couple, and it wasn't just ironman. I had also
noticed I got more xp in team than solo Baal runs.

>In fact it's
>another prime example of your unwillingness/inability to back up your
>statements with FACT. Now if YOU had gone to the AB and Phrozen Keep, and
>come up with the correct formula ...

There are facts other than formulas, Mark. I identified some. You
then accused me of fabricating them.

But hey, no apology "necessary"....

-- Roy L
March 29, 2005 3:03:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:42485ad8.9104999@news.telus.net...
>
> And, let's not forget, accused me of fabricating claims

No, I said your anecdotal stories do not constitute a valid claim.
Statistical validity requires more than a few observations. And I stand by
that claim.

> and harboring
> paranoid delusions because I got my facts correct...

You're the one who spouted this in your anti-PK rants. You built the house,
you live in it.

>>One case warrants an apology, the other does not. IMO.
>
> I see.
>
> So, IYO, would whatever one _you_ did _ever_ warrant an apology...?

If I made a personal attack on someone based on what turns out to be faulty
informatin, yes, I would apologize. But why apologize if no harm was done? I
took the opposing side in a debate (which turned out to be wrong). How were
you wronged? You're argument was vindicated by information I provided. It
was my duty to correct faulty information I had provided. Beyond that, I
don't think I owe you anything.

>>I've never seen you apologize when you get your facts wrong.
>
> The following exchange occurred between us last September:
>
> Quote on:
>
>>> IMO the _majority_ of all HC
>>> deaths pre-1.10 were due to PKs, and maybe even post-1.10. The
>>> majority of mine certainly have been.
>
>>No denying that TPPK is a big problem. But other than you I know of not
>>one
>>other person who loses a majority of their characters to PKs, either legit
>>or hackers.
>
> Sorry, I should have said, "in public games."
>
> Quote off.
>
> I got a fact wrong, and I apologized for it. End of story.

OK, I was wrong again. But I see absolutely no reason why you should have
apologized. Mindless apologies diminish their value when they are truely
warranted. You can be assured if I apologize it's because I mean it.

>>Your couple Ironman
>>games versus ONE multiplayer game is statistically irrelevant.
>
> It wasn't just a couple, and it wasn't just ironman. I had also
> noticed I got more xp in team than solo Baal runs.

Then why didn't you mention this when I said you needed to come up with more
justification? Like I said earlier, when people ask you for more information
(or justification) you are not forthcoming.

>>In fact it's
>>another prime example of your unwillingness/inability to back up your
>>statements with FACT. Now if YOU had gone to the AB and Phrozen Keep, and
>>come up with the correct formula ...
>
> There are facts other than formulas, Mark. I identified some. You
> then accused me of fabricating them.

No Roy, reread my posts, I did. I didn't accuse you of fabrication, I said
your anecdotal evidence was statisticaly invalid.

> But hey, no apology "necessary"....

No harm, no foul.

Regards-
Mark

Bongo-Fury
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:15:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:14:07 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:

>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:01:50 +0100, Oliver Wenzel <ouuch@t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >royls@telus.net wrote in news:4240fb0a.41398525@news.telus.net:
>> >
>> >>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:42406143.2026050@news.telus.net...
>> >>
>> >>>Personally it takes me an average of about 2 hours/act to quest a
>> >>>character, getting all the quests and WPs. Do I really have to spend
>> >>>the approximate 10 hours to work a character through normal difficulty
>> >>>to measure up in your eyes? Normal difficulty is boring, it poses very
>> >>>little challenge to me. Must I REALLY endure all its tedium in order
>> >>>to get to a fun part of the game?
>> >>
>> >> In SP, you have no choice.
>> >
>> >wrong. In SP, you can start a char with the -act5 trick, which puts him
>> >at level 33 with all skill/stat points to distribute.
>> >I always do this and rush the new char through Normal, which should only
>> >take about 3 hours. And level 33 is quite good for starting out in NM
>> >diff on your own.
>>
>> Sorry, what exactly is the "-act5 trick"?

In the shortcut to diablo ii.exe, add -act5 after the pathname
"C:\Program Files\diablo II\Diablo II.exe" -act5
If you create a character, he appears in act 5, not act 1, with 33
levels and unspent skill/stat points. The only way point that will work
is to the Rogues Camp, and (s)he has no gear but the normal starter
gear.

Good way to test experimental builds in SP.

In CE, the -act5 trick gets you a lvl 96 character.