Best Of

Enadonella and Avurkhos were the only pre buff Nilhist I that I ever saw getting solo kills.

Enadonella put more time and effort in the arena than I've seen almost any single individual.

I think I'd say Rolsand was the person I've seen put in almost as much effort as Ena and you can really see how he's improved as well from the start.

People don't get good overnight. They put in a lot of effect for a little bit of improvement.

@Saran I don't really doubt that people who still fight in Halli would go SD to my Harbinger if that option were available to us, tbh. 

@Esoneyuna I would be open to everyone being forced into five identical classes. In fact, it is my preferred option, and I only suggested giving everyone access to everything on the off chance that it would be easier and faster to implement. If you like the five classes idea, I'm all for it too! 

At people arguing in this thread generally: I currently have no horse in this race. I am a player who has been inactive, has recently become slightly less inactive, and may or may not stay that way, depending on the way combat balance goes. In the past, I have spent many hours arguing with the same people on the same topics. Now, as always, anyone who likes is free to ignore me, as you are free to ignore other people who perceive a problem, but there is no law that requires those people to play a game that you enjoy and they do not.

Aramel said:

I find it difficult to believe that previous envoys who have wanted to work on tuning Glom skills have not gone to the test server and produced evidence for their claims.

I apologize if I'm blunt, but the whole point of this thread is this: balancing skills is exhausting, especially when it involves having to argue with vocal opponents who will defend Glom skills to the death. People don't want to do that anymore; they'd rather not play. And maybe this does make them quitters. People are proposing skillset availability as a solution that will let everyone have access to the skills they believe are necessary to compete, without having to go through the mentally and emotionally taxing process of hours of arguing with Glomdoring.

Edit: replace Glomdoring with org of your choice if you like. That's not relevant to the point of this post.

I actually much rather have them force us all into the same 5 classes with only cosmetic differences. Giving everyone access to -every- current skill would be hell to implement. Giving them only access to opposing org skills would be equal hell and still give a big imbalance.

5 classes would be a lot of inititial work (mainly picking what template to use from each current org) and rewriting lines and stuff but in the end it will save a lot of time in balancing. Hell it would reduce the mage rework  by quite a lot of manhours since they would have to design 1 instead of 6 classes from the ground up. Balancing would be easier, everyone still gets to hold RP flare of their org and so on.

Lycidas said:

Bonded totems via a Druid can be runed to work as statues

Might have changed but the difference was/is that Druids can only bond a single totem where a mage could feasibly bond statues throughout an entire city. I'd expect we're at the point where Seren couldn't even reliably have totems active at the important npcs let alone trying to guard all their entrances.

Aramel said:

I believe I have just explained in my post above why I favor skill accessibility and letting people vote with their lessons, over arguing whether or not it's OP, because the thing driving people away from the game isn't just the mechanical imbalance, it's what they have to go through to try to address the mechanical imbalance.

The question is actually pretty important, this whole thing about like taking a Glom class out of the Glom synergy and fighting a Glom that's using a different orgs class outside of their org synergy (or lack thereof) implies people are talking about 1v1 but a lot of the posts read to me that it's the org synergy itself that's the issue so 1v1'ing each other seems pretty meaningless.

Anaklusmos said:

The point is that Glomdoring likes to paint all critique as negative in nature, and then either cry "personal attack" or deflect topic when called out.

In fairness, if you put actual critique vs. vague whatever many of these posts amount to then personal attack is by far the norm.

Combat is math. So imbalances shouldn't be all that hard to show. 

It probably is more effective to pick a single thing, explain it clearly, show it is a problem instead of dying on the mountain.

I think, by contrast, the thing that killed the game for me was the knight overhaul. I was actually overall doing okay with class imbalance. I would lose fights every time but still had fun doing it to an extent because knights just felt fun to play. The knight overhaul really hurt. It made knights unrecognizable and took away a lot of things from them. They lost flavour, became somehow more inert, somehow more linear, and I felt like the original design was something the majority of the warriors of the game had no part in... We got opportunities to put bandages on it, which I give the admin credit for, with a special report, but a lot of the magic was gone for me. I used to feel a certain drive to challenge myself and run to a fight and now I just feel like a cripple.

Honestly, I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter if the people leaving are "quitters" or "haters". Population is a real issue in this game, and whether you feel Glomdoring deserves it or not, a number of people have cited it as a mechanical imbalance that contributed to them leaving. We can go all day arguing about whether people who want to leave the game are terrible people, but the truth is that if everyone you're calling a quitter and hater leaves, the game will be in an even worse spot.