Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
<<Now an idea has been thrown out to maybe buff the power or accuracy of TM spells.... some people see this as a patch on the system, a kind of middle ground that although it does sound interesting and very magical, its not going to fix the issue that mages want a TM spell to be as powerful as a handheld weapon in its damage.>>
Accuracy wasn't and isn't the problem, and it wasn't and isn't the point of TM Mana Scaling or Foci damage increases. The proposals are intended to address the problem--lackluster TM damage.
Your ideas for pathways are nice, but there are a lot of other TM-using guilds. This is precisely why Kodius' approach makes the most sense: he's starting with the broadest applicable change (TM Mana Scaling) and moving into more complex systems (foci) from there. Once you have the broad "baseline" established, you can make adjustments to discrete guild-only systems (like pathways) in a reliable fashion.
And apologies to all for being a primary spammer of this folder, but I don't think any mechanical development has ever concerned me more in my time in DR than the resolution of the current TM situation.
>>Does that make sense as a solution to you?
There will be checks in place to prevent Foci-swapping-abusing.
Foci are intended to bring a substantial bonus to the table. They are also kind of necessary because Runecrafting was looking a bit shallow without it. So secretly it helps me in many many ways. Work orders would have been difficult because enchantments are an enhancement, not a finished item.
Yes - I do need to expand WO's to include that but my #1 priority at the moment is getting Enchanting TRAINABLE. TM Foci make that possible, much faster and with the added bonus of making magic combat more complex for some.
Just ignore it if you don't want to use it. I am spending tonight working on TM damage to see if we can make it better for people. But please lay off the negativity until I've actually done something to warrant it :/
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
There will be checks in place to prevent Foci-swapping-abusing.
Foci are intended to bring a substantial bonus to the table. They are also kind of necessary because Runecrafting was looking a bit shallow without it. So secretly it helps me in many many ways. Work orders would have been difficult because enchantments are an enhancement, not a finished item.
Yes - I do need to expand WO's to include that but my #1 priority at the moment is getting Enchanting TRAINABLE. TM Foci make that possible, much faster and with the added bonus of making magic combat more complex for some.
Just ignore it if you don't want to use it. I am spending tonight working on TM damage to see if we can make it better for people. But please lay off the negativity until I've actually done something to warrant it :/
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
>>Prep spell X/stow weaponZ/get FociY/wait for prep/Cast/Stow FociY/Wield weaponZ.
>>Does that make sense as a solution to you? Nice as a perk and/or a bonus not as a primary means of fixing lackluster TM dmg.
If GMs can figure out how to avoid people doing that with fired missile weapons, I think they can manage with foci.
At this point, it seems like you're getting what you want (to have TM damage comparable to things like crossbows and not rely on weapon damage to make up for the lack of damage through pure TM), but you still want to be upset about something so you're looking for a way to continue being annoyed.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
>>Does that make sense as a solution to you? Nice as a perk and/or a bonus not as a primary means of fixing lackluster TM dmg.
If GMs can figure out how to avoid people doing that with fired missile weapons, I think they can manage with foci.
At this point, it seems like you're getting what you want (to have TM damage comparable to things like crossbows and not rely on weapon damage to make up for the lack of damage through pure TM), but you still want to be upset about something so you're looking for a way to continue being annoyed.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
>And apologies to all for being a primary spammer of this folder, but I don't think any mechanical development has ever concerned me more in my time in DR than the resolution of the current TM situation.
For whatever it's worth, your posts have been entirely reasonable and on point. As someone who also enjoys the heck out of my magic users, I appreciate your perspective on how it fits with PvP and higher ranks.
For whatever it's worth, your posts have been entirely reasonable and on point. As someone who also enjoys the heck out of my magic users, I appreciate your perspective on how it fits with PvP and higher ranks.
>>Just ignore it if you don't want to use it. I am spending tonight working on TM damage to see if we can make it better for people. But please lay off the negativity until I've actually done something to warrant it :/
Thank you for continuing to look into TM and uncovering the issues, i really do think that foci are a great idea to add to the system i just had not wanted to see it as a patch and rather want TM to stand on its own and foci be an add on (which is what it sounds like we are getting closer to accomplishing)
i'm very glad that you were able to find the hiccup with the system and look forward to any improvements TM has to offer
Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR
Thank you for continuing to look into TM and uncovering the issues, i really do think that foci are a great idea to add to the system i just had not wanted to see it as a patch and rather want TM to stand on its own and foci be an add on (which is what it sounds like we are getting closer to accomplishing)
i'm very glad that you were able to find the hiccup with the system and look forward to any improvements TM has to offer
Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR
I love the idea of TM Foci. I've always considered TM to be a weapon, just like a broadsword or a crossbow and I train it exactly like I do my weapons, so having a staff or wand to do battle with fits with my idea of what TM is. Great idea and keep up the great work.
________________________________________________________________
"I only automatically kill players when they're asking for it or it's funny. Or both." ~GM Raesh
________________________________________________________________
"I only automatically kill players when they're asking for it or it's funny. Or both." ~GM Raesh
>>Also maneuvers don't run out of anything; but the ability to cast spells is only limited to mana. So now spells are being burdened with more limitations and nerfs. That just doesn't make sense to me.
No, spells just got an incredibly massive buff. Please stop complaining and test a bit :/
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
No, spells just got an incredibly massive buff. Please stop complaining and test a bit :/
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
>More strength and a heavier weapon help make that damage higher.
So in comparison, more mental(s) and higher mana should make damage higher. I agree with that. You need strength to increase damage and stamina to keep swinging, maybe use intelligence for TM damage and wisdom to boost attunement or something.
Mmmmm...pie
So in comparison, more mental(s) and higher mana should make damage higher. I agree with that. You need strength to increase damage and stamina to keep swinging, maybe use intelligence for TM damage and wisdom to boost attunement or something.
Mmmmm...pie
Intelligence does boost TM damage :P Not sure about Wisdom and Attunement though.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
>>Not sure about Wisdom and Attunement though.
Attuement is no good for dmg only for finding more mana in a room and/or general in case of MM.
Wisdom.. tricky Clerics benefit from that ability greately when it comes to their magic. Pretty sure that generaly Wisdom does not translate into increased damage for TM spells.
Attuement is no good for dmg only for finding more mana in a room and/or general in case of MM.
Wisdom.. tricky Clerics benefit from that ability greately when it comes to their magic. Pretty sure that generaly Wisdom does not translate into increased damage for TM spells.
>>Soch said it did: http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Post:3.0_release_-_01/18/2013_-_14:50
Good to now always tought was strictly for Vs contests and pace of absorbing Exp.
Good to now always tought was strictly for Vs contests and pace of absorbing Exp.
Because I'm magic primary, not weapons primary or even weapons secondary. I shouldn't have to use a foci to have my spells do as much damage as a weapon when that is my PRIMARY skill, nor should I have to dump a crap ton of mana into it when mana pools aren't that great to begin with. Besides, it never made sense to me that the cap on damaging spells was 100. If anything they should be lower.
Have you tried TM since Kodius fixed it? It does just fine and lower mana without a foci. It does better with higher mana, but by no means do you need higher mana (much less a focus) to effectively kill with it. It's kind of like the current combat maneuvers. Lower mana is like a draw in terms of damage, capped mana is like a chop or something.
>>I shouldn't have to use a foci to have my spells do as much damage as a weapon when that is my PRIMARY skill
And you don't with the recent changes.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
And you don't with the recent changes.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
>I shouldn't have to use a foci to have my spells do as much damage as a weapon
I'm not sure where people keep getting this; I was under the impression that the goal was 'fix TM damage to be on par with bows', and the goal for foci and TM maneuvers was to 'allow mages more depth and options with TM, boosting damage to, say, a greatsword'.
Protesting the existence of foci as TM damage boosters seem akin to protesting 2he because you feel brawling should already to 'max damage'.
Haha. I was answering a question and catching up on posts. I later got to the part where Kodius had talked about the changes, and since I was in test earlier I was doing more damage. I noticed that. To answer another question I usually cast at about 15 mana and don't harness anything.
So knowing that and realizing i had seen increased damage, I am for the idea of more foci now that I also saw Kodius's post regarding needing them to help bring enchanting out.
Sorry for being a prat, I should have kept reading and not opened my mouth.
Thanks
So knowing that and realizing i had seen increased damage, I am for the idea of more foci now that I also saw Kodius's post regarding needing them to help bring enchanting out.
Sorry for being a prat, I should have kept reading and not opened my mouth.
Thanks
>I'm not sure where people keep getting this; I was under the impression that the goal was 'fix TM damage to be on par with bows', and the goal for foci and TM maneuvers was to 'allow mages more depth and options with TM, boosting damage to, say, a greatsword'.
>Protesting the existence of foci as TM damage boosters seem akin to protesting 2he because you feel brawling should already to 'max damage'.
I think their complaint is basically that if "TM+Foci DPS = 2HE DPS", then it'd still be outclassed by 2HE solely because you can debil spam while swinging it?
If that is what they're saying, I can't say I'd agree...
>Protesting the existence of foci as TM damage boosters seem akin to protesting 2he because you feel brawling should already to 'max damage'.
I think their complaint is basically that if "TM+Foci DPS = 2HE DPS", then it'd still be outclassed by 2HE solely because you can debil spam while swinging it?
If that is what they're saying, I can't say I'd agree...
>I think their complaint is basically that if "TM+Foci DPS = 2HE DPS", then it'd still be outclassed by 2HE solely because you can debil spam while swinging it?
>If that is what they're saying, I can't say I'd agree...
The point is more that it needs to be TM+Foci > Ranged DPS, because ranged weapons can have debilitation spammed, which is very significant in terms of extra damage dealt. This just seems elementary to me. I think, also, that aimed weapons are a bit understrength compared to melee weapons. I'm not the greatest expert on that difference, but I've heard that from others as well, but that's a separate discussion.
>If that is what they're saying, I can't say I'd agree...
The point is more that it needs to be TM+Foci > Ranged DPS, because ranged weapons can have debilitation spammed, which is very significant in terms of extra damage dealt. This just seems elementary to me. I think, also, that aimed weapons are a bit understrength compared to melee weapons. I'm not the greatest expert on that difference, but I've heard that from others as well, but that's a separate discussion.
Please keep in mind that melee weapons require you to be at melee to use. That is a disadvantage. It opens you up to SHOVE and other Maneuvers. It opens you up to pulsing melee cyclic spells and engaged AoE spells. It also takes time to reach melee, and some Guilds have ways of avoiding that.
TM + Foci will have to be better than a 2HE attack, because a capped TM strike is currently rather better than a single 2HE attack.
TM Foci will increase your DPS a good amount. Proportionally, like moving from a ME to a 2HE. Of course there will be different Foci and different ways of using them and different effects.
Foci will be necessary to harm some enemies, just like weapons made of certain materials will be necessary to harm some enemies. Not necessarily right this moment, but in upcoming instances, invasions and quests for sure...
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
TM + Foci will have to be better than a 2HE attack, because a capped TM strike is currently rather better than a single 2HE attack.
TM Foci will increase your DPS a good amount. Proportionally, like moving from a ME to a 2HE. Of course there will be different Foci and different ways of using them and different effects.
Foci will be necessary to harm some enemies, just like weapons made of certain materials will be necessary to harm some enemies. Not necessarily right this moment, but in upcoming instances, invasions and quests for sure...
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
>Please keep in mind that melee weapons require you to be at melee to use. That is a disadvantage. It opens you up to SHOVE and other Maneuvers.
Kodius, I love what you have done, and all the systems you have created have been really cool. But after the last round of changing the tactics VS Defending check. It fails. With over 800 tactics I couldn't grapple people with 500 defending or shove them with over 20 tries. Melee is not half the disadvantage people think it is. Charge clearly has some big bonuses going on. In pvp i am sometimes more concerned about retreating because i will get charged again. Also People retreat on purpose just to advance and charge again!
Charge does give a penalty to all defenses; pretty sure all attacks do, some more than others presumably. Charge also tags on hefty RT since it sidesteps the advance time from pole to melee, leaving the charger vulnerable for 7 seconds. The only time I've seen anyone use charge is either when they have no choice (it's still really easy to avoid melee if one cares to) or as a finisher on a near-dead opponent. I'll take a pole-range weapon over charge any day.
Now... That's neither here nor there. TM with a held focus should do lots of damage because it eats up hand space, consumes a limited resource, puts the caster in invoke RT, and there's always the opportunity cost associated with casting a TM spell over casting a disabler.
>Retreating lowers your OF so not sure how good of an idea that is. Charge does work pretty nicely though.
That's true, but the initial penalty isn't really noticeable and if you manage to build a large penalty from constant retreating, it doesn't last very long. In any case, people usually get around it by retreat-retreat + run or hide or wait for reforming invis or EM auto-hide, or use a spell/ability that knocks the opponent away.
Now... That's neither here nor there. TM with a held focus should do lots of damage because it eats up hand space, consumes a limited resource, puts the caster in invoke RT, and there's always the opportunity cost associated with casting a TM spell over casting a disabler.
>Retreating lowers your OF so not sure how good of an idea that is. Charge does work pretty nicely though.
That's true, but the initial penalty isn't really noticeable and if you manage to build a large penalty from constant retreating, it doesn't last very long. In any case, people usually get around it by retreat-retreat + run or hide or wait for reforming invis or EM auto-hide, or use a spell/ability that knocks the opponent away.
Charge is garbage - p4p one of the worst manuevers in the game. 7 second RT REGARDLESS of weapon, about as accurate as Draw, hits for about the same.
It was good in 2.0 when all you needed to do was make contact - I used it occasionally, being melee primary.
It's unworkable in 3.0.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
It was good in 2.0 when all you needed to do was make contact - I used it occasionally, being melee primary.
It's unworkable in 3.0.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
>>But after the last round of changing the tactics VS Defending check. It fails.
I haven't really touched Tactics/Defending code in 6+ months. Might be a bug? Anyone else having trouble landing CIRCLE, WEAVE, BOB, SHOVE or GRAPPLE?
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
I haven't really touched Tactics/Defending code in 6+ months. Might be a bug? Anyone else having trouble landing CIRCLE, WEAVE, BOB, SHOVE or GRAPPLE?
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
