Some more partie ideas

[Rezdude03]

Originally posted by allstargoaly: I just think that Irvine is a Ranger because rangers are sort of Loners (like he was or claimed to be "lonely")

well i myself would not call him a loner since he was basically the "orginal lady's man" but a ranger would work.

crossbows are bows not modern weapons. still, that is a bit of a toss up. especially since mages cant use crossbows. the problem is, none of the characters had a deffinate proffesion. they were mostly the same other than limit breaks.

Originally posted by EEWorzelle: It is horrible advice, IMHO, to tell a new player to repeat characters in their party.

oh, eew, how do we get into these discussions? particularly since they are off-topic for the thread at hand...

although the reasons you give are all great things about non-repeated class parties that apply to beginners and non-beginners alike, there is a great reason to recommend repeated-classes to new players. that is: simplicity.

wizardry 8 is difficult. learning it takes quite a bit of trial and error, and the layered complexity and subtlety isnt easy to understand, even for an experience computer RPGer. by putting repeats of the same classes side-by-side, and using different races, or even the same races but varying their development, you can learn by direct comparison.

even if you dont develop them differently, the player has to less to worry about to get the party functional, and so can put more thought into strategy, tactics, the plot, etc.

i'm not saying repeated clases are a must, but i will say they are far from uncalled for. in fact, they might be just the thing to flesh out your knowledge of the game, for experienced players and newbies alike.

[ChaosTheorist]

3. 1 would be focued on using all of the defensive instruments (angels tongue) 4. 1 would use all of the offensive ones (poets lute, piercing pipes)

In my "no mana" party, I found it more useful to divide the offensive/debuff and defensive/buff instruments between the two Bards. That way you can cast, for example, both Haste and Bless in the first round, followed by attack or debuff spells in later rounds, healing as necessary. Likewise for two Gadgeteers: pump up the melee/shield guy with GA and Superman in the same round, etc.

[EEWorzelle]

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by EEWorzelle: It is horrible advice, IMHO, to tell a new player to repeat characters in their party.

oh, eew, how do we get into these discussions? particularly since they are off-topic for the thread at hand...
[/QUOTE]Interesting. I'm kind of surprised you found my comments to be off topic here (although I am often "guilty" of that when a thread drifts into a divergent but interesting area - it's the nature of discussion, I guess).

Cataephract, early in this thread gave the advice:

Originally posted by Cataephract: Beginner's party: 3 fighters, 1 bard, a priest, and a mage

Advice like this, with repeated characters is also given as a "great party for beginners" on the VN boards, from time to time.

It's a rotten trick to play on a player new to Wizardry 8. They buy this game, thinking they are going to have a great time, but instead find the combats boring and repetitive.

Those who give this advice for beginning players rarely, if ever, actually played a party like that (it wasn't the first party for those posting that advice on the VN boards). I have seen several times, where players naively and trustingly, thinking that those of us who advise have their fun at heart, take that advice. Some, after they play through the entire game like that, come back and report not having much fun. I don't blame them. It is very rare to see people who actually play the entire Wizardry 8 game that were bored, but I have seen it in this case. I'm not talking about the players that hit Arnika road and quit for a variety of reasons.

There is an arrogance among some Players (I'm not talking about you, Sultan, as far as I know), that makes them think they can handle all sorts of variety of characters, weapons and even strategies, but that other players new to the game are too stupid or ignorant to do so. There is no reason to expect that the smartest players who will ever play this game have already played it. It is insulting and demeaning to the new player to suggest to them that they should stick to only one type of character in the front line (for example), when they are starting out. Did you? Even if easy is desired, there are many easy parties in the game, with lots of variety.

Yes I love the variety of characters in this game, and the way they can all be powerful if developed well, but my comments were unselfishly on behalf of the new player, based upon evidence I have seen of new players getting bored with the game when actually taking such advice and playing parties like that. Many of us who keep playing Wizardry 8 have played lots of parties, so if one is a bummer or boring, no big deal. A lot of RPG players out there, however, will not change parties, and will finish the game with their first one. If they only play it for a few levels, it hardly matters but the whole game, it does.

When advice like that is given to new players that is likely to hurt their enjoyment of the game, that is simply mean. I can easily be wrong in any post, but do my best to communicate truth and feel it is important, relevant and worth posting in this case, to any new player actually considering taking that advice. This thread is about party ideas and my post is no more off topic than the previous post which gave, IMHO, the bad advice for the beginning player.

Now I hope nobody jumps to the conclusion that I am claiming repeated characters are always a bad idea or are not fun. I didn't say that and am claiming no such thing. I am talking about the intelligent and capable beginner (i.e. any beginner) who, wisely or unwisely, might come to this very board or another looking for suggestions for their party. For example, I have no disagreement with allstargoaly's post that CT also followed up on. Sounds like fun. The best Ranged-Party ideas I have ever seen (by GreaterDemon on the VN boards) had some repeated characters. Beginners may certainly choose a party such as one of those, and that's great. That's very different than what I am suggesting is mean.

Finally, I don't mean to pick on Cataephract, even though I disagree with most of the conclusions. I actually recognize a lot of my own advice for Bard and Alchemist development (by coincidence or reuse - it doesn't matter).

The advice for the beginner theatens new players fun, however, and is important. It probably isn't meant viciously and is probably just repeating what somebody else posted. I think if a party is going to be recommended to a new player that the one doing the recommending ought to have played it through to the end and attest that they had a great time doing so. Then recommend it.

[ 10-12-2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]

[Ziggurat]

Good points, EEW. I agree when people ask for an easy party they can get too easy, but maybe that is what they want. I'm kind of neutral about parties. Whatever works!

When you leave the Monastery you can get overwhelmed and it is just hopeless. Or, you can rest a bit and the enemies change and it is a piece of cake. Most of us have tried many parties, I have taken 9 to the end and they all have + or - skills. I don't like the 2 or 3 or 4 members being the same class/profession though. Never tried it, to be exact. But that is strictly taste. If you want to create a killer party, do what you want. I like variety and some weakness, to lead to development choices. Not too much, though. There are no perfect parties, it's a trade off. My 2 cents.

[EEWorzelle]

Thanks, Ziggurat. I agree with what you said. That stretch outside the Monestary has killed off more would-be Wizardry 8 players than all the other reasons combined.

It is also the biggest source of bad advice. A party which would allow even the brand new, inexperienced player to get through that stretch without any of the running, fighting from nooks, hiding , strategic sleeping, holding off on level-ups, playing on easy, etc., might not serve them well the rest of the game.

Also when an expert player repeats some characters, such as a Bishop, they might and probably will end up with completely different characters that just happen to share the same profession.

[ 10-12-2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]

Originally posted by EEWorzelle: I'm kind of surprised you found my comments to be off topic here (although I am often "guilty" of that when a thread drifts into a divergent but interesting area - it's the nature of discussion, I guess).

my first comment was tongue in cheek - more a reference to the first post (by freeminded referencing a LOTR party), than the path the thread has followed, or the fact we like to wander, which i most enjoy. apologies for any misunderstanding. i'll try to be more plain, below.

eew - i love your posts, and i mean that sincerely. although there's much i'd like to comment on, i will focus on the key message, for clarity.

I have seen several times, where players naively and trustingly, thinking that those of us who advise have their fun at heart, take that advice. Some, after they play through the entire game like that, come back and report not having much fun.

that's an excellent point and one i hadnt considered from your original post. this is definitely a good reason not to recommend repeated characters.

however, it only offers a counterbalance to the reasons to play repeated characters, imo. as i stated before, a party that repeats characters is infinitely easier to play than a party full of the many difficult and slow to develop hybrids offered in the game. for some players, that complexity, when confronted full on, can be just as big a barrier to enjoyment or continuing play.

the trade-off is boredom for simplicity.

in pursuit of the truth, i would expect the repeated characters alternative to be offered, with positives and negatives clearly outlined, alongside other more interesting parties, with their positives and negatives outlined, so that the intelligent and capable beginner can make an informed decision on what they would most enjoy.

and if they pick wrong, they've got all the other suggestions ready and waiting [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-14-2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: sultan ]

[EEWorzelle]

Sounds good.

Yes, that point is exactly at the core of it.

I think the "trade-off" is deceptive. 99% of all RPGs focus on where you go, what you get and who you kill. Wizardry 8, on the other hand, is a Character Development Strategy Game, as well as RPG, and that's what makes it so great. Take that out of the picture and you have something okay but not great. The new player to the game doesn't know this, so they can easily think they will have most of the fun with a so-called "easy" party with repeated characters, since they still go to all the places, get the treasure and so forth. Only those of us who love this game, and have played it many times, know how much this robs from them.

This was just a strong opinion, and since I hadn't actually played a party like that through the entire game myself, I just kept my mouth shut. But when some new players actually took that advice, played the game and found it boring, that became evidence and I began to speak out against those plausible-sounding suggestions. It actually gave one player the impression that this would be an awful game to replay. Can you imagine that?

Anyway, as long as the new player is warned that they might be bored to tears if they actually play a party like that, I guess that's fine. They can figure it out, given a warning. I will humbly say that new players can handle a lot more than you think they can, or so I have found by following their posts for the last two years. Simplicity in getting there is a virtue when the end result is all that matters but when the whole point is enjoying the process, simplicity may or may not be a virtue. In this case, in that way, in my opinion... not. It is much better to take a variety and play the entire game on "Easy." That can be a lot of fun according to what players who do actually play that way report. If it were the other way and players found three Fighters in their front line great fun and playing in Easy mode boring, then my position would be reversed. It's just about what happens to be true, or as close to it as possible.

[allstargoaly]

Go figure... I changed my mind yet again.

I just started a new party of four.

Dracon/Fighter
Human/Samuri
Human/Ranger
Rawulf/Bishop

For the most part, the group is doing well. The Dracon/Fighter and Human/Samuri are just knocking off the competition, while the Human/Ranger and Rawulf/Bishop are cleaning up (while giving support). My question is, "What is going to happen against huge groups of bigger and better monsters?"

Because of having 4 characters instead of 6, the experience is racking up. The only thing that concerns me, is having a party of 6 makes it easier to win battles against bigger groups of enemies than with 4. I wonder if having a party of 4 will make it harder later in the game. Does anyone have some insight...?

I mean leveling up will be easier in the beginning, but against larger groups later on (like 6, lvl. 15 monsters), is my fate intangled in death and defeat...? I could use some good advice from those who have used parties of 4,3,2, and 1...

[petertmorgan]

Allstar:
I'm also running a party of four
Alchemist
Ranger
Lord
Valkyrie
(all human)
I'm in Trynton now after monastery, arnika, joining Umpani, cemetary. The key to my winning over large groups of monsters is keeping my Alchemist safe. Her spell casting started strong and has only gotten more powerful vis a vis the enemies we face (she has more than double the number of kills of any of the other characters). The problem is that I don't have enough characters to really protect her (I keep the three hybrids in front, alchemist in the middle) so I have to make extensive use of nooks, passageways, etc., where bad guys cannot get around me. You can imagine facing 8 Juggernauts at level 8-9 is not easy (we are now levels 10 and 11), but the alchemist can heal my front line characters (and we have plenty of potions) as well as cast the cone/area of effect spells. In a nook I would win this battle consistently (although requiring a few pandemonium powders and several rocket sticks for when I ran out of SP). If facing groups with missile attacks (large groups of plants, for example), I always put guardian angel on the alchemist at the beginning.

Now that my hybrids are casting better, I'm using almost exclusively magic for ranged attacks - lord/valk throw a lot of level 3 webs and level 6 or 7 make wounds, ranger casts blinding flash and noxious fumes and just got whipping rocks. This cuts the enemy down substantially before getting to melee (which my characters can also do, but relatively poorly, as I'm pushing INT/PIE for all characters and using about 4-6 skill points/level in magic for the hybrids.

Another important thing for me has been smelling salts and stamina potions. In my 6 or 8 character parties I didn't bother (except for the requisite stamina potions for a bard), but with four I find it oh so important. I think with your party, fighting from a nook against large numbers of enemies who may have knockout ability, as long as your fighter/front line characters stay awake you'll be okay.