CL: Healer exp

External Since: Jul 01, 2003 Posts: 43

In article <HelpfulGM-39A697.11211207072003 DeleteThis @sea-read.news.verio.net>,
Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote:

> Ignoring the library-chars for a moment, if it were possible to "do more
> fun stuff" with a 1000-rank healer than with a 1000-rank fighter,
> wouldn't there be more healers and fewer fighters?

Not if it's possible to do the same fun stuff with a 6-*week* healer as
with a 6-week fighter, regardless of what the rank numbers say.

I recommend paying less attention to numbers -- especially to comparing
your numbers to someone else's, and *especially* especially to
comparing numbers between classes. If you're having fun on hunts as a
healer, play a healer. If you think you'd have more fun as a fighter,
whether because you could hit things better or because you'd get more
of a warm-fuzzy feeling from a bigger rank message change at the end,
try that instead.

> As it stands, the
> F/H/M ratio seems to be about 70/25/5 (which, btw, is very-nearly as
> hoped/designed) -- is it unsafe to assume that these characters
> exist/are being played in approximately the ratio that players find
> them fun?

Yes, of course, it also depends on what kinds of things different
people find fun. What's not safe to assume is that the average numbers
of ranks are the same for all those characters -- but they're not
designed to be, they don't need to be, and IMO redesigning things so
that they were would likely do more harm than good. Matching numbers
doesn't make a balanced game.

Ann

External Since: Jun 28, 2003 Posts: 170

In article <becftn$7f2r$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, "Lex" <corra.TakeThisOut@mac.com>
wrote:

  > > Ignoring the library-chars for a moment, if it were possible to "do more
  > > fun stuff" with a 1000-rank healer than with a 1000-rank fighter,
  > > wouldn't there be more healers and fewer fighters?

> I don't know how you think this would be the case. You can do more stuff
> with a 3000-rank fighter than with a 1000-rank fighter, but there aren't
> more 3000-rank fighters than 1000-rank fighters.

Now you're just being silly!

There are more people striving for being 3000-rank fighters than those
who are untraining their 1500 rank fighters trying to get back to
1000-ranks.

> The types of jobs healers usually have on hunts differ from the types of
> jobs fighters usually have, although often there is some overlap. Those
> jobs can usually be done with a smaller number of ranks than the jobs the
> fighters are doing (on the same hunt, in the same area, of course).

So, are you saying that a hunt group of (say) 1000-ranks fighters is
easily supported by (say) 700-rank healers? Numbers for example only,
I'm trying to get the gist of what you're saying, here.

Of course, it's always been the case that fewer healers are needed to
support a larger number of fighters -- but that approximately reflects
the current F/H ratio, so it works out.

  > > ...So I guess it just comes back to what-means "more effective."

> A healer with zero ranks can help raise a fallen the rest of a group didn't
> have the horus for. A zero-rank fighter can't do anything nearly as
> helpful.

?! A 0-rank healer contributes about as much to raising a fallen as a
0-rank fighter contributes to keeping an area clear of monsters. (Ok,
technically, you can't be a fighter util you have a few ranks, but it's
true if you make it a dozen-rank healer/fighter.)

Still... On any given hunt, it's certainly "optimal" to have quite a bit
more fighter-ranks (represented in additional fighters) than healer
ranks. As an example, five 1000R-fighters + one 1000R-healer is
probably a better hunting machine than a group with three of each.

Helpful "how either group manages to survive without a mystic is
anybody's guess! ;)" GM

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael