ToME: the Tales of Maj'Eyal

Here I propose my ideas, and invite other to discuss, about how classes in this game ought to be designed. This is nominally a philosophical inquiry because I think this game lacks some intellectual clarity in design.

First and foremost, I think the first question should always be "how do you want the class to play?"

Can a class play fast or must it play slow?

Focused on optimizing for chaining skills together in repetitive patterns? More situationally free-wheeling? Hit and run? Sniping? Being in the mix? Micro-managed in battle or laissez-faire?

Should the class have a natural race or no? It's okay that some do but they shouldn't all. More so, every race ought to have one "natural" class.

Should it play evenly throughout the game? Hard to start and strong at the end. Strong to start but mediocre at the end? Peak in the middle but weaker at the beginning and end? When do you want the class to peak?

Should it have an achilles heel like the Lumious Horror for the Sun Paladin or the Charred Scar for the Wildfire Archmage?

Should the class be dependent upon an escort reward or particular equipment or should those things merely create a new build-option?

Should it be mentally taxing (doing math in your head or keeping track of multiple data-points, et al) or rote?

Should there be variance or total control?

There ought to be variance... some classes should be simple and easy to play, with few build options and categories. To that end, the Summoner and Cursed are satisfactory.

Other classes should have complex synergies and a myriad of different skills that one can focus on. I think the Paradox Mage is the a good example of this. Lots and lots of options, even within the same categories. Doomed and Oozemancer are also pretty good in this regard.

Additionally, some should be very transparent on the mechanics and synergies whereas it's okay for others to be more opaque. It can be fun to find that one counter-intuitively powerful skill with the right build.

Some should have "luck" builds that require a particular escort reward or piece of equipment that makes a particular build possible. Same with prodigies.

I truly believe that every class should have an "easy" and hard period in the game, at least on normal. Maybe it comes early or maybe late or whenever but every class should struggle at some point but also just crush it in others. It should vary from class to class... there's nothing like just crushing some part of the game that causes you problems on another class or build.

What classes shouldn't be is the Necromancer.

To me, that is the prime example of bad design. Skills are incoherently arranged (best nuker build is hamstrung by putting Chill of the Tomb in the category with Vampiric Gifts, limiting your ability to use Forgery of the Haze because you DON'T want it to have Chill), wasteful, utterly pointless (Undeath Link might be the worst skill in the game), actively detrimental, or lazy (Ice category, really?).

How it seems to want to play doesn't align with the only successful way it can play. Most of those skills are ultimately just bloat, especially at later difficulties. Most of its skills are Potemkin skills. They're an illusion.

It is not merely a question of melee, ranged, caster, etc. The real question is about gameplay. If two classes nominally play the same way then the differences are merely cosmetic.

It is my belief that every class should have at least two viable builds on normal and most classes should have one or two viable builds on Nightmare and a few should have one or two viable on Insane. Very few classes should have one or two viable builds on Insanity sans exceptional luck.

I believe that every class should have some synergies. A few ought to be obvious and intuitive but others (like duel-wielding staff reavers or using Arcane Combat to proc spells and so on) can be more opaque. This adds richness and discovery, making the class more fun as you gain experience with the game mechanics. There ought to be some surprises in most classes, except for a couple of "basic" classes, again, like the Summoner.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts...

I largely agree, and as I thought about your criteria and rationales, I must admit, I think ToME does am amazingly good job at fulfilling much of this. I've experienced everything you've written about - unexpected combos, classes boosted by great gear drops, troughs and peaks through the gameplay at really different points, obvious race/class synergies, etc.

So, perhaps you meant your post as a critique (?), but I'm inclined to deduce that this game scores highly against the crtieria you propose.

Delmuir wrote:First and foremost, I think the first question should always be "how do you want the class to play?"

Does it really matter how someone feels a class should play? Really what should matter is if players have fun playing the class - if their are players who feel they aren't having fun then adjust it then.

Delmuir wrote:Can a class play fast or must it play slow?

Look at above answer for last question.

Delmuir wrote:Focused on optimizing for chaining skills together in repetitive patterns? More situationally free-wheeling? Hit and run? Sniping? Being in the mix? Micro-managed in battle or laissez-faire?

In general, the above is fine to look at, but it is generally more important to make a class viable before thinking about its general playstyle. That isn't to say this should be ignored but moreso that we still have some classes that still need to be buffed.

In addition to above though, I would note that we could add in a couple of thoughts, those being: Is the class Newbie Friendly or more Expert Oriented? Is the class oriented towards Strategic or Tactical play?

Delmuir wrote:Should the class have a natural race or no? It's okay that some do but they shouldn't all. More so, every race ought to have one "natural" class.

To be honest I don't think it should necessarily matter if a race has a favored class or not, or if a class has a race that should naturally play it. Moreso what matters is if a race has or class has limited choices for viable combination. Take the Higher Race for example - if people feel that they only have a sparse few classes choices to pair up with it, then that's a problem.

Delmuir wrote:Should it play evenly throughout the game? Hard to start and strong at the end. Strong to start but mediocre at the end? Peak in the middle but weaker at the beginning and end? When do you want the class to peak?

A better question to ask here is whether their are points of the game where it becomes exceeding hard to play - moreso then it should be. Take a Yeek character starting out - should it have great difficulty in getting out of the starting dungeons? Where in the game is it difficult to play a character and should it be that difficult to play at that point of the game?

Delmuir wrote:Should it have an achilles heel like the Lumious Horror for the Sun Paladin or the Charred Scar for the Wildfire Archmage?

Another look at the above answer for last question. Despite a weakpoint in the character, is it too difficult for it play - can that Wildfire Archmage for example get to the end of the Charred Scar before the timer hits, is it incapable of killing the Fire Elemental or does it have too?

Delmuir wrote:Should the class be dependent upon an escort reward or particular equipment or should those things merely create a new build-option?

This is actually a very important question, because if something is chanced based then it is something to be wary of. If an optional reward or particular equipment feels necessary, then the class (or race) is doing something wrong.

Delmuir wrote:Should it be mentally taxing (doing math in your head or keeping track of multiple data-points, et al) or rote?

I'm pretty sure for the most part that the game makes this is a non-issue. I don't think I've yet to play a class or race that requires this in this game.

Delmuir wrote:Should there be variance or total control? There ought to be variance... some classes should be simple and easy to play, with few build options and categories. To that end, the Summoner and Cursed are satisfactory.

I assume that these questions are more or less one in the same? Anyhow, the above question boils down to one thing - do players have fun with the class? If players have fun with the simple Cursed then it is satisfactory. If players have fun with the complex Archmage then it is satisfactory. Changes shouldn't occur to these classes on the basis that they should be more complex or made more simple.

Delmuir wrote:Other classes should have complex synergies and a myriad of different skills that one can focus on. I think the Paradox Mage is the a good example of this. Lots and lots of options, even within the same categories. Doomed and Oozemancer are also pretty good in this regard.

Again, look at above answer. If players have fun with it, then all is good.

Delmuir wrote:Additionally, some should be very transparent on the mechanics and synergies whereas it's okay for others to be more opaque. It can be fun to find that one counter-intuitively powerful skill with the right build.

Above Answer.

Delmuir wrote:Some should have "luck" builds that require a particular escort reward or piece of equipment that makes a particular build possible. Same with prodigies.

In general I think it is fine if a class has 'luck' oriented builds. If someone wants to make a character focused on using Exotic Weapons and poke things with the Naloran Prodigy then let them. The bigger question is whether it has alternative builds to play that aren't as luck based.

Delmuir wrote:I truly believe that every class should have an "easy" and hard period in the game, at least on normal. Maybe it comes early or maybe late or whenever but every class should struggle at some point but also just crush it in others. It should vary from class to class... there's nothing like just crushing some part of the game that causes you problems on another class or build.

Sort of subjective here? Maybe a character should just have it easy from start to finish - or hard from start to finish (depending on your point of view)? If a class is designed to be evenly difficult throughout play then I see nothing wrong with it myself.

Delmuir wrote:What classes shouldn't be is the Necromancer.

(Start Sarcasm) No, no, what classes shouldn't be is the Rogue (End Sarcasm).

I have a general policy of stating that if you don't like a class, then simply don't bother with it. I personally dislike Reavers for example - doesn't mean I'm pining to see that class get changed.

Delmuir wrote:To me, that is the prime example of bad design. Skills are incoherently arranged (best nuker build is hamstrung by putting Chill of the Tomb in the category with Vampiric Gifts, limiting your ability to use Forgery of the Haze because you DON'T want it to have Chill), wasteful, utterly pointless (Undeath Link might be the worst skill in the game), actively detrimental, or lazy (Ice category, really?).

I'll skip this one, but I will say that I doubt the talents were any worse then pre-wyrmic changes in how they are arranged.

Delmuir wrote:How it seems to want to play doesn't align with the only successful way it can play. Most of those skills are ultimately just bloat, especially at later difficulties. Most of its skills are Potemkin skills. They're an illusion.

If a skill is trash then it should be updated - not much more to say.

Delmuir wrote:It is not merely a question of melee, ranged, caster, etc. The real question is about gameplay. If two classes nominally play the same way then the differences are merely cosmetic.

This is a rather difficult question to answer, because it can be difficult to determine when the gameplay of a class is too similar to another; or if one class is like another but supbar. Faeryan had put up an idea for making a Paradox Assassin type of character and I'll note that I immediately thought about Shadowblades. However, as similar as one class might be to another, is there enough to make them different? Part of my reply was to instead change it from a Temporal Assassin Concept to a Temporal Trickster - which could allow for a different flavor.

Delmuir wrote:It is my belief that every class should have at least two viable builds on normal and most classes should have one or two viable builds on Nightmare and a few should have one or two viable on Insane. Very few classes should have one or two viable builds on Insanity sans exceptional luck.

On lower difficulties there should be multiple ways to play a character for sure - on higher difficulties, not necessarily as much; or even more then one build. Higher difficulties aren't necessarily made to be balanced towards the player.

Delmuir wrote:I believe that every class should have some synergies. A few ought to be obvious and intuitive but others (like duel-wielding staff reavers or using Arcane Combat to proc spells and so on) can be more opaque. This adds richness and discovery, making the class more fun as you gain experience with the game mechanics. There ought to be some surprises in most classes, except for a couple of "basic" classes, again, like the Summoner.

This is more of a statement then a question; very subjective too. If classes have synergies, then great, but moreso again it is about them being viable to play.

Delmuir wrote:Anyway, those are just my thoughts...

Here's some replies, for better or worse.

Davion Fuxa wrote:

Delmuir wrote:Focused on optimizing for chaining skills together in repetitive patterns? More situationally free-wheeling? Hit and run? Sniping? Being in the mix? Micro-managed in battle or laissez-faire?

In general, the above is fine to look at, but it is generally more important to make a class viable before thinking about its general playstyle. That isn't to say this should be ignored but moreso that we still have some classes that still need to be buffed.

I don't think this is true at all. Every class needs a distinct playstyle. There would be no point to having mindslayer if it played exactly like arcane blade. Having a style first and then worrying about viability within that style will create a distinctive class with a coherent aesthetic. Worrying about viability first and then trying to fit it to a style will tend to make incoherent classes that run together.

I wasn't going to bother returning to this, in the hope that people would use it as a starting point to address the underlying question.

Instead, Davion inspired me to return to this with an almost perfect example of the problem.

I've rarely encountered such a tendency to respond with reflexive avoidance of the core issues as on this forum. All of his/her comments were just contrarian side-stepping responses and offered little to nothing in terms of the underlying concept.

It is a case study in avoiding critical thought while giving the appearance of it.

I'm a player. I want to enjoy the game and, sans for a few classes, I can't. Not because they're hard but because they're irritating. My points are regularly met with responses of deference to ARBITRARY "realism" or rules, which has nothing to do with "fun."

So... that's the issue Davion. What is important, in terms of design? Fidelity to arbitrary rules or some cogent notion of what players will enjoy?

Try actively thinking about the issue instead of this bizarre, reflexive response that's so popular on here.

I don't intend this as a personal insult, although I'm sure it'll be deleted on that grounds. Rather, it is intended as a clear criticism of the sloppy reasoning that has kept this game wracked with inexplicable inefficiencies, bloat, and waste.

Delmuir wrote:I wasn't going to bother returning to this, in the hope that people would use it as a starting point to address the underlying question.

Instead, Davion inspired me to return to this with an almost perfect example of the problem.

I've rarely encountered such a tendency to respond with reflexive avoidance of the core issues as on this forum. All of his/her comments were just contrarian side-stepping responses and offered little to nothing in terms of the underlying concept.

It is a case study in avoiding critical thought while giving the appearance of it.

I'm a player. I want to enjoy the game and, sans for a few classes, I can't. Not because they're hard but because they're irritating. My points are regularly met with responses of deference to ARBITRARY "realism" or rules, which has nothing to do with "fun."

So... that's the issue Davion. What is important, in terms of design? Fidelity to arbitrary rules or some cogent notion of what players will enjoy?

Try actively thinking about the issue instead of this bizarre, reflexive response that's so popular on here.

I don't intend this as a personal insult, although I'm sure it'll be deleted on that grounds. Rather, it is intended as a clear criticism of the sloppy reasoning that has kept this game wracked with inexplicable inefficiencies, bloat, and waste.

It's not an insult at all, there are certain people which will not be named that honestly contribute nothing more than shitposting and non-issue arguments to a lot of the ideas and desire of moving forwards. The reason you made this thread is one of them :p.
It's easier to come up with irrelevant and bad reasons to not improve something and maintain the status quo that actually improve things. Others simply don't agree with anything other than what they themselves say, and actively defend dated or bad design for the sake of it.
I mostly think the forums are not worth bothering with because of people like these.

I don't take your post as an insult, moreso I take it as ignorance that there are different opinions out there that may prioritize a different way of looking at the game. Ultimately, any guidelines that are established are going to be extremely subjective to those forming them. One of the advantages that Tales of Maj'Eyal has is that there isn't any sort of conforming structure that requires things to be designed in a specific way - that's how a class like Skirmisher gets added in the game, that's how Wyrmics get redone and changed.

It could be worse, Tales of Maj'Eyal could be Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup - and I mean that as an actual example since DCSS does have some design principles.

To tell a story, a while back in DCSS there was a race, the Mountain Dwarf. This race was removed in version 0.10 of the game due to the decision by an admin that the Mountain Dwarves were too similar to Hill Orcs and Minotaurs and that ultimately a race had to go. Ultimately for the decision, the admin got massive protest from the player base. I won't go on further about this but it is a rather deep topic that has been thoroughly discussed.

You can like or dislike the state of anarchy so to speak, but ultimately it works quite well and is one of things to enjoy in regards to Tales of Maj'Eyal. I bring the point about Mountain Dwarves up because trying to create 'design principles for the whole game' can ultimately backfire spectacularly when they are executed. I think in regards to your question of arbitrary rules or a notion of fun - it spells out a good case on why it is a far better idea to edge towards fun.

*****

One final thing to note is that you mentioned Critical Thinking - make no mistake that I am using Critical Thinking as well, but I'm also using past experience and judgment on top of it.

Sheila wrote: It's not an insult at all, there are certain people which will not be named that honestly contribute nothing more than shitposting and non-issue arguments to a lot of the ideas and desire of moving forwards. The reason you made this thread is one of them :p.
It's easier to come up with irrelevant and bad reasons to not improve something and maintain the status quo that actually improve things. Others simply don't agree with anything other than what they themselves say, and actively defend dated or bad design for the sake of it.
I mostly think the forums are not worth bothering with because of people like these.

Then why do you keep posting to tell us that you don't think its worth contributing, instead of just contributing.
Okay, this is only the second time I've seen such a post from you, but let's stop it before it becomes cliché. XD

HousePet wrote:

Sheila wrote: It's not an insult at all, there are certain people which will not be named that honestly contribute nothing more than shitposting and non-issue arguments to a lot of the ideas and desire of moving forwards. The reason you made this thread is one of them :p.
It's easier to come up with irrelevant and bad reasons to not improve something and maintain the status quo that actually improve things. Others simply don't agree with anything other than what they themselves say, and actively defend dated or bad design for the sake of it.
I mostly think the forums are not worth bothering with because of people like these.

Then why do you keep posting to tell us that you don't think its worth contributing, instead of just contributing.
Okay, this is only the second time I've seen such a post from you, but let's stop it before it becomes cliché. XD

I'll stop saying that when it stops being true, because contributing is generally met with worthless defensive criticism, bloat, shitposting, and whatnot from people like you, ibanix, etc? You should know.
Me and bpat had to argue for entire pages that bad prodigies need change because people went out of their way to shoot down perfectly sound suggestions and that have no idea how the game works past normal adventure.
You do this all the time and most of the time you don't even propose better ideas You're the reason delmuir made this thread.
If anything is cliché it's the contrarian attitude and refusal to improve, learn or listen to anyone other than themselves that some people show just because they have been around for a while or have a lot of posts.

Me getting called contrarian because I want to understand someone justification and frequently both agree and disagree with different points people make sure is getting cliché.

In the prodigy thread people were actually arguing against statements that balance didn't matter on normal/balanced on insane is balanced on normal, which is also contrarian. Nobody disagreed that there are a lot of crap prodigies. Nobody disagreed that they should be sorted. People just had concerns about what it would do to balance and wanted to discuss it. Is that a bad thing?

So you've just complained about bloat again while posting bloat. Your post could also be classified as worthless defensive criticism and shitposting.

Hrm. Maybe I've just got the same attitude as you, I can't be bothered posting suggestions because contributing is generally met with worthless defensive criticism, bloat, shitposting, and whatnot from other people.

Gosh its like people actually care about this game.

I completely agree with Demuir and Sheila. It really bothers me when good suggestions are shot down without any alternative suggestions, which I see on pretty much every thread on the ideas forum. I dislike the notion that everything is fine from a design perspective, because by that logic nothing would get changed ever.

I have a general policy of stating that if you don't like a class, then simply don't bother with it. I personally dislike Reavers for example - doesn't mean I'm pining to see that class get changed.

I dislike this kind of mindset, it gets in the way of improving the game. I dislike playing Reaver because I feel forced to go double staff because it's so much better than the other options but it's also not fun since it takes at least half the game to get going. Reaver is a really cool class conceptually that suffers from some questionable design choices. If there's something people don't like and it isn't because of a personal bias, then it's probably worth investigating why that is and trying to fix it rather than ignoring it and pretending everything is fine.

In the prodigy thread people were actually arguing against statements that balance didn't matter on normal/balanced on insane is balanced on normal, which is also contrarian.

The only people who have the misconception that balancing for Insane will break Normal are people who don't play it, so I find it very difficult to take those comments seriously. The big problem with that thread is I'd say something "Unbreakable Will is worse than Draconic Will in 99% of situations so it should be buffed" and someone else would come in and be like "What about that 1% though?! Because there exists a nonzero probability that at least once Unbreakable Will will be better than Draconic Will for a bizarre situation that I could probably survive regardless it is totally fine and shouldn't be changed at all!!" and I would waste time responding to that instead of discussing actual ideas when really that comment shouldn't have been posted at all because it's derailing and unhelpful.

bpat wrote: It really bothers me when good suggestions are shot down without any alternative suggestions, which I see on pretty much every thread on the ideas forum.

On the other hand, if they have a legitimate concern but no alternative suggestions, are they supposed to stay quite? Sure it would be wonderful if everyone could come up with a great fix to a problem when they first see it, but let's be realistic here.

bpat wrote:The only people who have the misconception that balancing for Insane will break Normal are people who don't play it, so I find it very difficult to take those comments seriously.

But they do play on Normal and it will be affected, so why shouldn't those concerns be taken seriously? Many of the prodigies are used by bosses, so buffing the prodigy buffs the bosses.
And how would you feel about possible balance changes they might impact upon Insane? I can easily say that it doesn't matter because Insane is meant to be hard. But that is just the easy way out. There is no reason that all difficulty levels can't be balanced.

Now regarding the original point of this thread, I agree with both Delmuir and Davion Fuxa. (Cue the contrarianism comments...)
Working out how the class should play is one of the most important parts of class design, if not the most.
Davion Fuxa did not say any of the original points were wrong. They added some very good points and built upon the ones already there. They also questioned the importantness of some of the points raised.
Then for no apparent reason Delmuir comes back and derails their own thread with a rant full of buzzwords, no specifics about what actually upset them and some insults about critical thinking as well.

What was the point of that?
What really bothers me is when people derail their own threads, to have a rant about people posting crap in their threads, by posting crap in their own threads.

The problem is usually the concerns aren't well thought out. Whenever I criticize and idea I try to come up with an alternate solution that would work better while still addressing the original concerns, as long as the concerns are actually worth addressing (which they usually are).

Yeah people will be affected if they play Normal but not by very much. Balance changes have nearly no impact on Normal because whenever you die, 90% of the time it's because of a poor decision rather than a bad build. It's easy to blame the build but back when I played Normal, I noticed that almost all my deaths were because I made a poor decision rather than because I invested in the wrong talents or played an underpowered class. Also if I recall correctly Parcae and I were the only ones who discussed enemies benefiting from prodigies (specifically Spell Feedback). There were absolutely no suggestions that I made in that entire thread that would break Normal in any way, in fact, I specifically tuned them so that they would at best be as strong as good prodigies rather than better than good ones. For instance, Unbreakable Will would still be worse than Draconic Will and YSBMW would still be worse than Windblade.

Edit: To clarify, I appreciate thoughtful criticism from players of all skill levels. What I cannot stand is when people give a dumb suggestion and back it up with something like "I used it once on Normal and didn't lose so it's obviously in a good spot."

Me getting called contrarian because I want to understand someone justification and frequently both agree and disagree with different points people make sure is getting cliché.

Then you're going about it the wrong way, but honestly you don't ever seem supportive of any ideas other than your own.

In the prodigy thread people were actually arguing against statements that balance didn't matter on normal/balanced on insane is balanced on normal, which is also contrarian. Nobody disagreed that there are a lot of crap prodigies. Nobody disagreed that they should be sorted. People just had concerns about what it would do to balance and wanted to discuss it. Is that a bad thing?

Considering ibanix disagreed for the simple sake of disagreeing, and then made a thread saying it's okay for things to be garbage afterwards, I don't know what you're saying... Maybe you just see what you want to see.
Normal is already a joke with classes like Sun Paladin (shield almost plays itself), Temporal Warden, Oozemancer, Sawbutcher (embers is even easier than AoA!) etc, add ogre on top. Where's the concern about those making normal a cakewalk? I don't see them.
Players who play only normal are highly unlikely to have any real perception of what balance is as things that are kinda good on normal are trash on insane. There's nothing contrarian about saying that things that are strong on insane are strong on normal because that's just how difficulty works on a logic level, if you can beat a dragon with something then you can beat a rat with it.
Like bpat said normal players blame the game and class/race/etc for their own under-performance because they have no idea how balance really works or are simply not good at the game mechanically (why do you think everyone treats yeek as a joke?) People can show all the concern they want but in the end if they don't have a deep understanding of balance then it doesn't matter, since those concerns aren't realistic.

So you've just complained about bloat again while posting bloat. Your post could also be classified as worthless defensive criticism and shitposting.
Hrm. Maybe I've just got the same attitude as you, I can't be bothered posting suggestions because contributing is generally met with worthless defensive criticism, bloat, shitposting, and whatnot from other people.
Gosh its like people actually care about this game.

"No you!" You've been flooding these forums with useless bloat and contrarian posts for far longer than I have bothered with them, other people have told you this and I'm certainly not the only one that believes this. This thread was made because you obviously had no idea what you were doing with your so-called rework, and why I hope it doesn't happen. Your first reaction was to passive-aggressive shitpost though so it just shows how you usually operate in these places. You unhelpfully don't address any points made and then make some up on the go and then debate those, which usually leads nowhere.

Me and bpat care about the game and balance a lot more than you seem to think, we understand and consider balance alongside with everything else, the problem is when people that have no idea what they're talking about go around shooting down other people's ideas and making it seem like positive change is a bad thing which happens often

I have a lot of ideas and suggestions and some have made it into the game, but it's people like you that actively make sure they won't see them posted on the forums. That's fine, I care about the game more than I care about getting praise for things. I'd argue that I love this game more than a lot of people.

Sheila wrote:

Me getting called contrarian because I want to understand someone justification and frequently both agree and disagree with different points people make sure is getting cliché.

Then you're going about it the wrong way, but honestly you don't ever seem supportive of any ideas other than your own.

"Maybe you just see what you want to see."

Maybe I was just calling Ibanix nobody.
And maybe I just made a generalisation so as not to post pointless details that you would probably just call 'bloat'.
Do you deliberately try to find any fault in what I say?

This thread was actually made because I answered the question badly, not because I had no idea.
My first reaction to this thread was, "Yes I answered that really badly. I should apologise and try again." Which I did.
My second reaction to the thread was to facepalm at you shitposting to complain about people shitposting.

I am actually well aware of how much you and bpat care about the game and balance. That is the reason I still talk to you after the shit you give me all the time. I'm not going to hate someone because they care about something. This is however a public forum. People are going to say stupid things. Try not to explode just because someone disagrees or questions something. Try not descend into insult slinging, it detracts from your original point.

I've posted ideas on the forums and some of them have gone in the game too. Big whoop.

I'm currently actively trying to get you to post your ideas and discuss other peoples ideas. It would be a huge improvement to bloating other peoples threads with "this is why I don't post ideas" stuff.

Incidentally, if you believe that everything I post is shit, why do you keep responding to me?