0000210: Gladiators are kind of weak, have few tricks; maybe give non-polearms ones better weapons too.

Notes
(0000474) Danei (reporter) 2009-12-19 07:33	Hmm maybe this should have been under gameplay balancing.

(0000495) Eronarn (updater) 2009-12-20 23:06	I generally agree with the notion of improving gladiators. Another option is moving their Unarmed skill into Throwing and giving them a stack of javelins; their gear (particularly their ammo) could also come enchanted.

(0000502) Lemuel (updater) 2009-12-21 03:11	So kill them. When DCSS allowed every race to take every class, it significantly shrank class-space. (Before, which races could take them was a major source of class differentiation.) Class space has been overcrowded ever since. So if a class seems weak, default response should be to get rid of it.

(0000503) TGW (reporter) 2009-12-21 05:07	I think you can retain that by differentiating the classes based on race. Certain fighters could be more like gladiators. This removes the problem of having too many similar classes, while retaining the differentiation.

(0000504) jpeg (manager) 2009-12-21 14:12	Wouldn't that have the opposite effect of making fighters and gladiators more similar? For what it's worth, I think we should get rid of the plain Fighters and keep the nicely differentiated Monk, Berserker, Gladiator, Knights and Crusader.

(0000506) TGW (reporter) 2009-12-21 17:29 edited on: 2009-12-22 02:28	Well, you remove gladiators first. And fighter is the only heavy armour class among those. And knights don't exist. Paladins? EDIT: lol im dumb

(0000507) Lemuel (updater) 2009-12-21 18:17	I think getting rid of either Fighters or Gladiators is equally good, but the game doesn't have room for both. (Especially since the addition of Arcane Marksmen pushes Hunters in the direction of melee.)

(0000511) Danei (reporter) 2009-12-21 22:57 edited on: 2009-12-21 22:59	^^ I'm pretty sure by knights, jpeg means the death knights and chaos knights. I also think these are mostly good ideas. I'm not too sure about deleting the class entirely, but I think changing their skills and/or starting equipment around might be useful. Particuarly unarmed combat, which seems to be at odds to some extent with shields.

(0000512) Lemuel (updater) 2009-12-21 23:43	Need to take a step back and ask why are they in the game. Class X exisrts is not a sufficient argument that class X ought to exist. not every Crawl playstyle needs its own class. In fact one of the best things about Crawl, is how unimportant classes are for character development. The only reason you have different classes, is to offer different starting points for early-game development. So there is no reason to have separate classes for heavy-armor vs. light-armor fighters, or for fighters that also use thrown weapons, vs. ones that don't. it is trivially easy for the player to pick any of those paths given a generic starting package. IMHO Death Knights should be removed, for the same reason. It is easy for a player who starts as a Necromancer (or as an Yrdy-worshipping priest, if that stays in the game) to develop into a melee hybrid, if they want to. In b026, almost no races had the option of both DK and Ne, so they were really just race-specific versions of the same class. When classes were opened up to all races, one of the two should have been removed.

(0000513) Danei (reporter) 2009-12-22 02:10	I think (at least for races that can feasibly wear either light or heavy armor) that gladiators and fighters are pretty well differentiated. The issue I see is that gladiators are way worse. Not that they're too similar. There actually IS a (reasonably) good reason to start a gladiator, and that's the trident. I just think this should be made more uniform across the weapons.

(0000516) Core Xii (reporter) 2009-12-22 10:38	Why not just remove gladiators and give fighters the option to start with a trident?

(0005159) Straydusk (reporter) 2010-05-30 12:21	I created a Code and Docs Wiki article to continue this interesting and important discussion at https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:feedback:job:fighter [^] . It would be great if some sort of resolution could be come to in time for 0.7. Please add your feedback to the Wiki article in light of the changes brought about by 0.6.

(0005374) Sealer (reporter) 2010-06-06 01:34	I actually find fighters a lot harder to start with then gladiators, and consider gladiators as perfectly viable. One thing I don't like about them is the unarmed combat skill they start with, which is pretty redundant for a shield-users. However apart from that gladiators are one of the more open classes, able to be developed in many directions, and I, for one, have less trouble starting one than a fighter.

(0005408) Danei (reporter) 2010-06-06 23:13	I made this FR before the heavy armour nerf, and at that time, I found fighters to be much easier to start than gladiators, but post-nerf, I agree with Sealer, and I think fighters are currently significantly more difficult to start.

(0005422) Sealer (reporter) 2010-06-07 04:56	Yes, but they weren't any better before than they are now. Barring the odd case when you find a stack of steel javelins, they're exactly the same as before 0.6. Which makes your point about gladiators being weak, very unconvincing. They aren't any stronger than they were before, they aren't very difficult to start now, so they weren't weak before. I like what you said here: 'They're either fighters who haven't picked up heavy armor yet, or crusaders who haven't gotten a book of war chants yet' because this embodies what I really enjoy crawl: versatility in building your character from scratch.

(0005430) Danei (reporter) 2010-06-07 09:42 edited on: 2010-06-07 09:44	^ I'm not sure whether you're talking about fighters or gladiators here, but fighters used to be MUCH easier to start than they currently are, due to heavy armour. The point of the FR was that gladiators were weak -in comparison- to fighters such that there was little point in starting one unless you were a merfolk or some other light-armour exclusive race because they were otherwise very similar except one was worse. In a case like that, the backgrounds ought to have been merged or gladiators made stronger, but now that heavy armour has been toned down, there's little need for that (if anything, fighters should be made stronger, now).

(0005434) Sealer (reporter) 2010-06-07 12:39	I'd rather say early AC should be made more useful. Doesn't feel like there's much bdr .

(0005524) user308 2010-06-10 23:24	Gladiator to me seems like a great class for Merfolk, don't get rid of it. I think throwing nets just need to be more durable, and it would be a really fun class to play. The problem with it is that you can entangle a few creatures and stab them (fun) but once your nets all break that play style is at an end and you have to play catch-up with some other approach.

(0005574) dpeg (administrator) 2010-06-12 12:28	I am closing this. Heavy armour has been nerfed (which was necessary, even if the resulting nerf has hit AC a bit too hard), so that we no longer have Fi > Gl for all species who actually get a heavy piece of armour. It may very well be that Fi now needs some boost, but that's a different topic. Gl is fine, in my opinion. Every background should provide something to get you through the first levels: Gl comes with a weapon and nets. (For example, to escape from some pesky unique. Try it!) Those nets are useful early on. Making them also/more useful later on is again a different topic.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2009-12-19 07:32	Danei	New Issue
2009-12-19 07:33	Danei	Note Added: 0000474
2009-12-20 23:06	Eronarn	Note Added: 0000495
2009-12-21 03:11	Lemuel	Note Added: 0000502
2009-12-21 05:07	TGW	Note Added: 0000503
2009-12-21 14:12	jpeg	Note Added: 0000504
2009-12-21 17:29	TGW	Note Added: 0000506
2009-12-21 18:17	Lemuel	Note Added: 0000507
2009-12-21 22:57	Danei	Note Added: 0000511
2009-12-21 22:59	Danei	Note Edited: 0000511
2009-12-21 23:43	Lemuel	Note Added: 0000512
2009-12-22 02:10	Danei	Note Added: 0000513
2009-12-22 02:28	TGW	Note Edited: 0000506
2009-12-22 10:38	Core Xii	Note Added: 0000516
2010-05-30 12:21	Straydusk	Note Added: 0005159
2010-05-31 04:21	ledtim	Issue Monitored: ledtim
2010-06-06 01:34	Sealer	Note Added: 0005374
2010-06-06 23:13	Danei	Note Added: 0005408
2010-06-07 04:56	Sealer	Note Added: 0005422
2010-06-07 09:42	Danei	Note Added: 0005430
2010-06-07 09:44	Danei	Note Edited: 0005430
2010-06-07 12:39	Sealer	Note Added: 0005434
2010-06-10 23:24	user308	Note Added: 0005524
2010-06-12 12:28	dpeg	Note Added: 0005574
2010-06-12 12:28	dpeg	Status	new => closed
2010-06-12 12:28	dpeg	Resolution	open => done
2010-06-12 12:28	dpeg	Fixed in Branch	=> 0.7 development branch

Relationships