Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I was running last night and posted this on discord a bit disjointed but I wanted to expand on this purely for conversation...
I know a lot of people have been wanting upgrades to melee, because comparatively melee has some issues when comparing to casters. A lot has been centered around speeding up combat, and I'm not sure how that would really work towards anyone's advantage honestly.
If the plan is to put melee and casters on the same playing field, the easiest way would be to make all instant damage AOE spells (518, 435, 1630, 635) have an automatic 3sec soft RT PER creature hit. So if you hit 5, you get 15 seconds of soft RT) this would align with melee MSTRIKE (for example I swing at 5, 7, 9 and 11 respectively). I am completely disabled, in offensive while a caster currently can spam aoe x4 in the exact same time period, still dance/sit thru defensive and wash their hands.
Spells that do 0 direct damage would NOT be affected by this mechanic, they would act as normal, so 410, 1614, 1608, 909, I would even allow 709 just for the sake of argument.
For spells that do repeating damage and require buildup (I want to say 525, and 710 for example) there would be two options, either its focused and only touches one creature, and acts as it does currently with no change.
…yes I get that 525 is not a focused spell, but it could be!
if it is OPEN CAST, then something such as CHANT <710> would be used and the caster would be put into a 3second soft rt automatically renewing at 1 second (so still 3 seconds of soft RT) but the spell would only end when they STOP CHANT, attempt to physically attack/cast, or become stunned/incapacitated. (mana cost could be lowered at initial cast, but slowly built up to cost more and more each renewal of the chant). Buildup could be sped up slightly and damage could be increased (for sake of conversation say 15% increase plus the ability of lores to press through resistances or even possibly overcoming immunities.)
You could allow for single action without interruption of spell (something like GET HEALTH POTION, or GET AOLEAS STEM would get a health potion or Aoleas Stem and instantly drop it on the ground, allowing a fellow person to pick it up and use it on their own, this allows a modicum of assistance while keeping up a spell of constant damage/disabling via stun mechanics, again any other action including moving rooms would automatically stops the CHANT. (The cycle speed could be sped up as well so this can potentially be well wort it with the increased damage/crit cycling)
Now with this all being said I will give reasons why I would like, but disagree with upping melee.
First, if you increase weapon DF across the board, let us just say 30% for sake of argument, I would imagine that this means that ALL CREATURES would have a DF increase of 30% Across the board. This would drastically increase risk to people who sit in offensive, specifically melee’ers. (This would annihilate my entire redux at 83)
Reducing RT sounds great, but again, this directly reduces creature RT by the same. While some of it might be a bit trivial, some creatures are already especially nasty, and making them faster, may not be the best way to go… Also how does this work with bard haste and celerity? I think these both might be the reason the DEV team might not want to mess with these formula’s
Now, with this being said, I understand that this basically turns into a nerf of some sort.
Will people hate this, yes, would GS ever implement it, I don’t honestly expect, nor necessarily want them to at this juncture. People would quit the game complaining that they are unplayable when they are still highly viable, just brought back down planet elanthia instead of cloud 9, and I think this would give an option for buffing maelstrom and other like spells into being a bit neater….I get its kinda niche.
Amazingly enough though I think that this would allow for a better powercreep through items that everyone seems to complain about to help offset some of these issues
You could have caster gloves that help reduce that AOE SOFT RT, as well as the increasing mana cost buildup and possibly introducing weapons that reduce hard rt by 1 or 2 seconds total based on the number of mobs you hit during MSTRIKE....call it a swift longsword, this longsword reduces TOTAL RT when MSTRIKING or something, or a knights gauntlet that reduce all melee combat by 1 second…..not necessarily well fleshed out, but ideas.
I had a thought about using PF as a measure to reduce RT, and that might be a more viable way to do it as I’m not sure creatures have PF, or just inherent redux, but that might be worth looking at (maybe larger weapons can get a -1second RT for each 50 skill in either pf or weapon training).
Just my opinion....
I want it clear, that I’m not exactly advocating for these changes, just putting out my thoughts, in the hopes of better conversation, as well as possible insight into making this a better experience possible… I don’t think a truly simple answer exists to bring melee a little closer to par with casters. I do think that we can adjust most of the weapon DF’s in a way that brings weapons kind of on par (like all one handed 5 second base/min rt’s should be roughly the same DF like falchions/handaxes are close but not the same, this would help with weapon base choice and why you’d want 1-3sec rt for ambushers who want the eyes, maybe 3-4sec rt for twc, 5sec sword/board based on current formulae’s).
Sorry its long winded, just some thoughts I wanted to get out.
-Khaell
I like the idea of a SKILL being used to reduce RT for weapons, but I think Combat Maneuvers is the more logical choice as it falls in line with Squares and Semis being able to reduce more RT than pures would be able to do. If you used Physical Training I can already see how that would benefit empaths way to much as they can 3x PT.
I think 100 ranks to reduce 1 sec of hard RT would be reasonable. 200 ranks reduces hard RT by 2 sec.
I think 100 ranks to reduce 1 sec of hard RT would be reasonable. 200 ranks reduces hard RT by 2 sec.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
yea, some of it i was thinking just more as i was typing, but i think that would make sense as well.. that or even just straight up weapons training. But skill is probably truly the easiest path to do it, and it not fall into the traps of buffing the enemies, which i'm not exactly sure how creatures are built, but i think even then, it seems fairly minimal in the overall arc of things.
-Khaell
-Khaell
Just some of my thoughts on this.
<< If the plan is to put melee and casters on the same playing field, the easiest way would be to make all instant damage AOE spells (518, 435, 1630, 635) have an automatic 3sec soft RT PER creature hit. So if you hit 5, you get 15 seconds of soft RT) this would align with melee MSTRIKE (for example I swing at 5, 7, 9 and 11 respectively). I am completely disabled, in offensive while a caster currently can spam aoe x4 in the exact same time period, still dance/sit thru defensive and wash their hands. >>
You wear Plate, can train in more defensive skills, and have more redux and defense in general. Wizards, as an example, wear leathers and if caught in offensive would die after a single hit -- you can take more than a single hit, even if caught in offensive -- I know aren't advocating for removing stance dancing, but this goes to show you there is a higher inherent risk and difference between the two.
You, also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted. Swinging a weapon does not cost a resource, like stamina for example, it is essentially free. Casters have mana, a limited resource, imposing a cap of 15 seconds, as per your example, and they'd never be able to fight groups of things that regen, because they would constantly be expending that limited resource. If we are going to truly balance things, then perhaps we need to make swinging a weapon cost Stamina like spells cost Mana and force swings back to a node when they run out?
I know taking the argument of "This is so unfair they look so powerful compared to me" is an easy path to take, but there are a lot of little intricacies involved with balancing that aren't being considered here.
I'm, also, not a fan of the "I feel underpowered so bring everyone down to my level" mentality -- I'd rather raise those up that need it, if they need it.
<< Reducing RT sounds great, but again, this directly reduces creature RT by the same. While some of it might be a bit trivial, some creatures are already especially nasty, and making them faster, may not be the best way to go… Also how does this work with bard haste and celerity? I think these both might be the reason the DEV team might not want to mess with these formula’s >>
Player RT and Creature RT could be separated -- I'm not sure why you think it is required they go together. Even if the code for both currently uses the same parent object class, they could be separated/changed.
<< People would quit the game complaining that they are unplayable when they are still highly viable, just brought back down planet elanthia instead of cloud 9, and I think this would give an option for buffing maelstrom and other like spells into being a bit neater….I get its kinda niche. >>
Since you are using a Wizard as an example here, I'd ask what level your Wizard is? Two reasons, I'd ask. First being that unless you have played one quite a bit, it's very hard to understand the depth involved and you may just be suffering from the grass being greener on the other side, and, secondly, if we are comparing cap/post-cap, I don't think it's smart to balance the game around cap/post-cap.
All of this said, I still do believe Wizards are a very viable class, if not the most viable, but there is a lot of smaller details you are missing -- every class has it's strength and weakness -- you may not be able to attack as fast, but you are far more defensible -- I don't think it's fair to balance one half of the equation without looking at the second half.
This doesn't even take into account things like Bards, who can swing Polearms with Tonis at extremely fast speeds, with high-end sonic flares.
<< If the plan is to put melee and casters on the same playing field, the easiest way would be to make all instant damage AOE spells (518, 435, 1630, 635) have an automatic 3sec soft RT PER creature hit. So if you hit 5, you get 15 seconds of soft RT) this would align with melee MSTRIKE (for example I swing at 5, 7, 9 and 11 respectively). I am completely disabled, in offensive while a caster currently can spam aoe x4 in the exact same time period, still dance/sit thru defensive and wash their hands. >>
You wear Plate, can train in more defensive skills, and have more redux and defense in general. Wizards, as an example, wear leathers and if caught in offensive would die after a single hit -- you can take more than a single hit, even if caught in offensive -- I know aren't advocating for removing stance dancing, but this goes to show you there is a higher inherent risk and difference between the two.
You, also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted. Swinging a weapon does not cost a resource, like stamina for example, it is essentially free. Casters have mana, a limited resource, imposing a cap of 15 seconds, as per your example, and they'd never be able to fight groups of things that regen, because they would constantly be expending that limited resource. If we are going to truly balance things, then perhaps we need to make swinging a weapon cost Stamina like spells cost Mana and force swings back to a node when they run out?
I know taking the argument of "This is so unfair they look so powerful compared to me" is an easy path to take, but there are a lot of little intricacies involved with balancing that aren't being considered here.
I'm, also, not a fan of the "I feel underpowered so bring everyone down to my level" mentality -- I'd rather raise those up that need it, if they need it.
<< Reducing RT sounds great, but again, this directly reduces creature RT by the same. While some of it might be a bit trivial, some creatures are already especially nasty, and making them faster, may not be the best way to go… Also how does this work with bard haste and celerity? I think these both might be the reason the DEV team might not want to mess with these formula’s >>
Player RT and Creature RT could be separated -- I'm not sure why you think it is required they go together. Even if the code for both currently uses the same parent object class, they could be separated/changed.
<< People would quit the game complaining that they are unplayable when they are still highly viable, just brought back down planet elanthia instead of cloud 9, and I think this would give an option for buffing maelstrom and other like spells into being a bit neater….I get its kinda niche. >>
Since you are using a Wizard as an example here, I'd ask what level your Wizard is? Two reasons, I'd ask. First being that unless you have played one quite a bit, it's very hard to understand the depth involved and you may just be suffering from the grass being greener on the other side, and, secondly, if we are comparing cap/post-cap, I don't think it's smart to balance the game around cap/post-cap.
All of this said, I still do believe Wizards are a very viable class, if not the most viable, but there is a lot of smaller details you are missing -- every class has it's strength and weakness -- you may not be able to attack as fast, but you are far more defensible -- I don't think it's fair to balance one half of the equation without looking at the second half.
This doesn't even take into account things like Bards, who can swing Polearms with Tonis at extremely fast speeds, with high-end sonic flares.
Really, these are horrible ideas. Hate RT lock? Well...hey, we're turning all your AOE spells into self-RT lock! Yeah, this idea is extremely poorly thought out.
Instead, focus on how to improve melee options and diversity. One idea suggested was to improve the weapon base, especially the un-used ones such that they all have special characteristics and abilities (i.e. double crit on plate, double parry chance, DEX based crits depending on ambush/perception ranks, etc). This serves to increase game diversity, add opportunities to improve melee power without nerfing current options, and give a bigger/better treadmill for improving your character.
Instead, focus on how to improve melee options and diversity. One idea suggested was to improve the weapon base, especially the un-used ones such that they all have special characteristics and abilities (i.e. double crit on plate, double parry chance, DEX based crits depending on ambush/perception ranks, etc). This serves to increase game diversity, add opportunities to improve melee power without nerfing current options, and give a bigger/better treadmill for improving your character.
>>You wear Plate, can train in more defensive skills, and have more redux and defense in general.
Not all squares are warriors, nor are they all plate wearers.
>>Wizards, as an example, wear leathers and if caught in offensive would die after a single hit
Pures/Semis can spell themselves up, and can reach such high amounts of DS that AS based attacks aren't really an issue. And what about CS based attacks? Aside from the extra CvA, plate doesn't do jack squat to help against them.
Squares, unlike other classes, are literally dependent on others to even be able to hunt at all, since hunting without spells is a death wish. How is this even fair? This entire concept of squares requiring spellups has baffled me since I first began playing GS3.
In fact, pretty much ANY balance discussion ever, is making the assumption that a square has a spellup, and it's pretty much considered a baseline for them. So I basically have to beg a caster to suck on their spellup teet, or create my own alt to do it for me, in order for me to exist as a square in this game. That is a load of crap if you ask me.
And I love how more powerful weapons induce higher RT, but more powerful spells? Still 3 seconds!
And it's 3 seconds of soft RT! Why is my RT hard and theirs soft? How is this fair or balanced?
>>every class has it's strength and weakness -- you may not be able to attack as fast, but you are far more defensible -- I don't think it's fair to balance one half of the equation without looking at the second half.
I absolutely disagree with this. I would say the only thing melee is more defensible against is maneuvers (Cman and SMR). Other than that, they aren't really. A caster can just have enough spells to defend and ward AS and CS based attacks.
Now, I'm not saying that mages don't have their weaknesses, because surely they do. And they can't always defend AS based attacks depending on their gear/XP, and what they are hunting.
But casters have so many ways to deal with critters, especially swarms. They can dispatch many things very quickly, and have access to many different spells to accomplish it.
I think just about anyone that plays a square and a non-square begins to see a very stark difference between the two. The reason why the Square issue keeps coming up lately (Especially rogues/monks), is because it's a real issue.
But I certainly agree that asking for a nerf is pointless, and will never happen, even if it's the best solution.
As far as what to do to help squares out...honestly I really feel the answer is more class dependent, and needs to be addressed more specifically for each individual square class, rather than some blanket solution for all squares.
But some blanket changes would certainly be nice. Perhaps a weapon DF and RT evaluation, as has been suggested, would be a good thing.
Not all squares are warriors, nor are they all plate wearers.
>>Wizards, as an example, wear leathers and if caught in offensive would die after a single hit
Pures/Semis can spell themselves up, and can reach such high amounts of DS that AS based attacks aren't really an issue. And what about CS based attacks? Aside from the extra CvA, plate doesn't do jack squat to help against them.
Squares, unlike other classes, are literally dependent on others to even be able to hunt at all, since hunting without spells is a death wish. How is this even fair? This entire concept of squares requiring spellups has baffled me since I first began playing GS3.
In fact, pretty much ANY balance discussion ever, is making the assumption that a square has a spellup, and it's pretty much considered a baseline for them. So I basically have to beg a caster to suck on their spellup teet, or create my own alt to do it for me, in order for me to exist as a square in this game. That is a load of crap if you ask me.
And I love how more powerful weapons induce higher RT, but more powerful spells? Still 3 seconds!
And it's 3 seconds of soft RT! Why is my RT hard and theirs soft? How is this fair or balanced?
>>every class has it's strength and weakness -- you may not be able to attack as fast, but you are far more defensible -- I don't think it's fair to balance one half of the equation without looking at the second half.
I absolutely disagree with this. I would say the only thing melee is more defensible against is maneuvers (Cman and SMR). Other than that, they aren't really. A caster can just have enough spells to defend and ward AS and CS based attacks.
Now, I'm not saying that mages don't have their weaknesses, because surely they do. And they can't always defend AS based attacks depending on their gear/XP, and what they are hunting.
But casters have so many ways to deal with critters, especially swarms. They can dispatch many things very quickly, and have access to many different spells to accomplish it.
I think just about anyone that plays a square and a non-square begins to see a very stark difference between the two. The reason why the Square issue keeps coming up lately (Especially rogues/monks), is because it's a real issue.
But I certainly agree that asking for a nerf is pointless, and will never happen, even if it's the best solution.
As far as what to do to help squares out...honestly I really feel the answer is more class dependent, and needs to be addressed more specifically for each individual square class, rather than some blanket solution for all squares.
But some blanket changes would certainly be nice. Perhaps a weapon DF and RT evaluation, as has been suggested, would be a good thing.
<< Not all squares are warriors, nor are they all plate wearers. >>
He was speaking for himself as an example, he is a Paladin -- I was using that as an example, I didn't mean to indicate everyone wears plate.
<< Pures/Semis can spell themselves up, and can reach such high amounts of DS that AS based attacks aren't really an issue. And what about CS based attacks? Aside from the extra CvA, plate doesn't do jack squat to help against them. >>
They can, also, spell other people up -- sure it is easier to spell yourself up, but that doesn't change things if everyone can have access to those spells -- unless you make want to make them self-cast only.
<< In fact, pretty much ANY balance discussion ever, is making the assumption that a square has a spellup, and it's pretty much considered a baseline for them. So I basically have to beg a caster to suck on their spellup teet, or create my own alt to do it for me, in order for me to exist as a square in this game. That is a load of crap if you ask me. >>
100% agree.
<< And it's 3 seconds of soft RT! Why is my RT hard and theirs soft? How is this fair or balanced? >>
I hunt far more easily on my ranger and bard than I do my wizard and have far more freedom in where I choose to hunt with them. But for warriors, rogues, monks, I do agree there are some unfair disadvantages, wasn't arguing that.
<< As far as what to do to help squares out...honestly I really feel the answer is more class dependent, and needs to be addressed more specifically for each individual square class, rather than some blanket solution for all squares. >>
100% agree -- my entire point was nerfing casters is not the way to go, especially because casters encompass more than just wizards and there is a lot to take into account. The solutions should be addressed, each, individually at a class level and not a blanket "nerf all casters" button.
He was speaking for himself as an example, he is a Paladin -- I was using that as an example, I didn't mean to indicate everyone wears plate.
<< Pures/Semis can spell themselves up, and can reach such high amounts of DS that AS based attacks aren't really an issue. And what about CS based attacks? Aside from the extra CvA, plate doesn't do jack squat to help against them. >>
They can, also, spell other people up -- sure it is easier to spell yourself up, but that doesn't change things if everyone can have access to those spells -- unless you make want to make them self-cast only.
<< In fact, pretty much ANY balance discussion ever, is making the assumption that a square has a spellup, and it's pretty much considered a baseline for them. So I basically have to beg a caster to suck on their spellup teet, or create my own alt to do it for me, in order for me to exist as a square in this game. That is a load of crap if you ask me. >>
100% agree.
<< And it's 3 seconds of soft RT! Why is my RT hard and theirs soft? How is this fair or balanced? >>
I hunt far more easily on my ranger and bard than I do my wizard and have far more freedom in where I choose to hunt with them. But for warriors, rogues, monks, I do agree there are some unfair disadvantages, wasn't arguing that.
<< As far as what to do to help squares out...honestly I really feel the answer is more class dependent, and needs to be addressed more specifically for each individual square class, rather than some blanket solution for all squares. >>
100% agree -- my entire point was nerfing casters is not the way to go, especially because casters encompass more than just wizards and there is a lot to take into account. The solutions should be addressed, each, individually at a class level and not a blanket "nerf all casters" button.
Yeah, sorry, I guess and I went and made it a square only argument, when he started it as a melee argument.
I definitely do agree that it would be nice for many weapon bases to have more advantages. But aside from decreasing RT of weapons, I don't see it as helping with melee a ton, and more specifically, square issues. It will just make a broader amount of weapons viable (Or at least more viable than they are now).
But is the best solution to melee issues, to make them as fast and versatile as casting classes? I'm not really sure if it is. I think a better solution would be to give them other strengths. They do have many strengths as it is, but maybe they could be amplified, or perhaps new strengths could be added?
Perhaps implementing dodge maneuvers, or TWC maneuvers? Or maybe increasing the value of armor overtraining?
Simply adjusting existing cmans, and implementing new types of maneuvers, I think would go a long way.
I definitely do agree that it would be nice for many weapon bases to have more advantages. But aside from decreasing RT of weapons, I don't see it as helping with melee a ton, and more specifically, square issues. It will just make a broader amount of weapons viable (Or at least more viable than they are now).
But is the best solution to melee issues, to make them as fast and versatile as casting classes? I'm not really sure if it is. I think a better solution would be to give them other strengths. They do have many strengths as it is, but maybe they could be amplified, or perhaps new strengths could be added?
Perhaps implementing dodge maneuvers, or TWC maneuvers? Or maybe increasing the value of armor overtraining?
Simply adjusting existing cmans, and implementing new types of maneuvers, I think would go a long way.
It seems like the vast majority of complaints about melee users are coming from capped players or those near cap. Since none of my melee users have had problems hunting like-level without spells they don't know themselves (rogue, warrior, ranger... one at level 81 and the other two in the high 50's), it seems like the problems are more with capped/near-cap hunting grounds then the combat style (though there are also a couple training choices clung to by a couple more vocal people I'm convinced are contributing as well).
While a couple things like a review of RTs (esp for heavier weapons) and more effective crowd control for squares that would help, it would prolly be better to make tweaks to capped hunting grounds instead of huge changes to melee combat.
No hunting ground should be designed around the idea that everyone is going to be glowing with every spell in the game (or any spell at all, in the case of squares), but there's also a significant percentage of the population too lazy to learn how to hunt without a full wizard spell-up. So with that in mind, adjust capped/near-capped hunting grounds to assume folk aren't hunting with any spells they don't know themselves, keep mass spells (911, 611, etc) as they are, and switch all other defensive spells that can currently be cast on others to only work while in the same group as the caster (though I could see exceptions being made for 104, 105, and a couple others).
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
While a couple things like a review of RTs (esp for heavier weapons) and more effective crowd control for squares that would help, it would prolly be better to make tweaks to capped hunting grounds instead of huge changes to melee combat.
No hunting ground should be designed around the idea that everyone is going to be glowing with every spell in the game (or any spell at all, in the case of squares), but there's also a significant percentage of the population too lazy to learn how to hunt without a full wizard spell-up. So with that in mind, adjust capped/near-capped hunting grounds to assume folk aren't hunting with any spells they don't know themselves, keep mass spells (911, 611, etc) as they are, and switch all other defensive spells that can currently be cast on others to only work while in the same group as the caster (though I could see exceptions being made for 104, 105, and a couple others).
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
I'll weigh in by saying that the concept of sell burst areas is, in itself, extremely poorly thought out. Pures, who are already glowing with spells, can carry a bunch of outside spells as well, due to their large number of magical skills. Squares, who are the ones who actually need the help, are much more limited in that regard.
My rogue, who wears padded brig, went the magical rogue route for this very reason; to be able to hunt in spell burst areas wearing a reasonable number of protective spells.
She's up to 15 spell ranks right now, and plans to get more. This is a lot less practical for warriors, due to the doubled cost of learning spells combined with the hug spell failure rate of plate armor. But she still sucks when handling swarms.
And of course, she needs more stamina, even though she has 200 ranks of PF. My empath, who uses a lot less stamina, has a lot more! Let rogues 3x in PF as well.
My rogue, who wears padded brig, went the magical rogue route for this very reason; to be able to hunt in spell burst areas wearing a reasonable number of protective spells.
She's up to 15 spell ranks right now, and plans to get more. This is a lot less practical for warriors, due to the doubled cost of learning spells combined with the hug spell failure rate of plate armor. But she still sucks when handling swarms.
And of course, she needs more stamina, even though she has 200 ranks of PF. My empath, who uses a lot less stamina, has a lot more! Let rogues 3x in PF as well.
Post 1
>If the plan is to put melee and casters on the same playing field, the easiest way would be to make all instant damage AOE spells (518, 435, 1630, 635) have an automatic 3sec soft RT PER creature hit. So if you hit 5, you get 15 seconds of soft RT) this would align with melee MSTRIKE (for example I swing at 5, 7, 9 and 11 respectively).
Two big problems with this that others haven't named already:
1 - 435 and 1630 would be non-spells since enemies would be standing up before the character has a chance to follow up.
2 - Your comparison with mstrike roundtimes is using either a slow race, a slow weapon, or both in mstrike roundtimes. My elf paladin's mstrike RT is 6 regardless of number of enemies because of high agility, dexterity, and two fast weapon bases (war hammers).
Now, I do hate mstriking with my human characters (a ranger and rogue) and it's a big reason why I'm never making a slow race character again, but rather than dragging others down I'd want to see the higher end of mstrike RT toned down (since it's already limited by a cooldown or stamina) or even see strength play a role in reducing mstrike RT.
The logic of a halfling swinging a battle axe faster than a giant is something I honestly can't even picture. :P
>Reducing RT sounds great, but again, this directly reduces creature RT by the same.
Even assuming it would, I don't understand the problem with that. Can you elaborate?
Post 2
>I like the idea of a SKILL being used to reduce RT for weapons, but I think Combat Maneuvers is the more logical choice [...] I think 100 ranks to reduce 1 sec of hard RT would be reasonable. 200 ranks reduces hard RT by 2 sec.
I like this. Let's do this!
Post 4
>You [a melee character], also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted.
Encumbrance will eventually end a melee character's hunt by taking away the DS from Dodging ranks.
Post 6
>Squares, unlike other classes, are literally dependent on others to even be able to hunt at all, since hunting without spells is a death wish. How is this even fair? [...] In fact, pretty much ANY balance discussion ever, is making the assumption that a square has a spellup, and it's pretty much considered a baseline for them.
I'm with you and don't understand how things have progressed this way for so long.
>I think just about anyone that plays a square and a non-square begins to see a very stark difference between the two. The reason why the Square issue keeps coming up lately (Especially rogues/monks), is because it's a real issue.
As Nehor noted recently on Discord, it's telling that in discussions about the most powerful professions, almost nobody names any square. I can't even make a case that they have non-combat strengths making up for it, either.
What I do find interesting is the scattered people who are playing pures and asking for post-cap specializations into warmage, warpath, and war cleric--and if Goat ever participated in these discussions I'd bet he'd want a war sorc option. (Though he's basically already created his own with a big stack of enhancives, scrolls, etc.)
It says to me that there still is something appealing about melee, but that the overall skillset of squares doesn't bring it together in some people's eyes.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>If the plan is to put melee and casters on the same playing field, the easiest way would be to make all instant damage AOE spells (518, 435, 1630, 635) have an automatic 3sec soft RT PER creature hit. So if you hit 5, you get 15 seconds of soft RT) this would align with melee MSTRIKE (for example I swing at 5, 7, 9 and 11 respectively).
Two big problems with this that others haven't named already:
1 - 435 and 1630 would be non-spells since enemies would be standing up before the character has a chance to follow up.
2 - Your comparison with mstrike roundtimes is using either a slow race, a slow weapon, or both in mstrike roundtimes. My elf paladin's mstrike RT is 6 regardless of number of enemies because of high agility, dexterity, and two fast weapon bases (war hammers).
Now, I do hate mstriking with my human characters (a ranger and rogue) and it's a big reason why I'm never making a slow race character again, but rather than dragging others down I'd want to see the higher end of mstrike RT toned down (since it's already limited by a cooldown or stamina) or even see strength play a role in reducing mstrike RT.
The logic of a halfling swinging a battle axe faster than a giant is something I honestly can't even picture. :P
>Reducing RT sounds great, but again, this directly reduces creature RT by the same.
Even assuming it would, I don't understand the problem with that. Can you elaborate?
Post 2
>I like the idea of a SKILL being used to reduce RT for weapons, but I think Combat Maneuvers is the more logical choice [...] I think 100 ranks to reduce 1 sec of hard RT would be reasonable. 200 ranks reduces hard RT by 2 sec.
I like this. Let's do this!
Post 4
>You [a melee character], also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted.
Encumbrance will eventually end a melee character's hunt by taking away the DS from Dodging ranks.
Post 6
>Squares, unlike other classes, are literally dependent on others to even be able to hunt at all, since hunting without spells is a death wish. How is this even fair? [...] In fact, pretty much ANY balance discussion ever, is making the assumption that a square has a spellup, and it's pretty much considered a baseline for them.
I'm with you and don't understand how things have progressed this way for so long.
>I think just about anyone that plays a square and a non-square begins to see a very stark difference between the two. The reason why the Square issue keeps coming up lately (Especially rogues/monks), is because it's a real issue.
As Nehor noted recently on Discord, it's telling that in discussions about the most powerful professions, almost nobody names any square. I can't even make a case that they have non-combat strengths making up for it, either.
What I do find interesting is the scattered people who are playing pures and asking for post-cap specializations into warmage, warpath, and war cleric--and if Goat ever participated in these discussions I'd bet he'd want a war sorc option. (Though he's basically already created his own with a big stack of enhancives, scrolls, etc.)
It says to me that there still is something appealing about melee, but that the overall skillset of squares doesn't bring it together in some people's eyes.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
I'm not sure reduction in General Melee RT is the way to go. Nor would I like to see pures handicapped with a huge boost to their soft RT as proposed. However, if class parity is a thing we actually want (do we...actually want this? Im unsure we do) the easiest thing in the world would be to simply move soft cast RT from 3s to 5s. Keep it soft, Channel would still only add 3s HARD rt. Pures still have a leg up RT wise.
Now, that said, I dont know if thats the correct route to take. As mentioned earlier, almost all the issues are coming post-cap, or at broke-cap (you know, the place that the game balance breaks). Because at lvl 60 and below, my squares hunt sans-spells jussssst fine. It could be that this all goes back to 'post-cap dev', and proper work there will bring things more into line.
But yes. Not that this is a vote, but I'd vote a big fat no for RT reduction in general.
GM Naionna at 11:41 PM
Whick is so pretty. it's a shame he has to talk.
Now, that said, I dont know if thats the correct route to take. As mentioned earlier, almost all the issues are coming post-cap, or at broke-cap (you know, the place that the game balance breaks). Because at lvl 60 and below, my squares hunt sans-spells jussssst fine. It could be that this all goes back to 'post-cap dev', and proper work there will bring things more into line.
But yes. Not that this is a vote, but I'd vote a big fat no for RT reduction in general.
GM Naionna at 11:41 PM
Whick is so pretty. it's a shame he has to talk.
It would be nice to see an advanced skill set you could train in for individual weapons.
It could be setup like the Shield/Armor specialization skills are. I envision it as something like, every 20 ranks in a weapon skill you earn 1 Weapon Point towards those particular weapons you can specialize in. You can then apply said WP to a specific weapon to help specialize your character with that weapon.
We'll say you're going OHB and have 1 WP because you hit 20 ranks training OHB. Now you get to decide what OHB weapon you want to improve upon and what skill for that weapon you want to spend that point. Maybe your character loves the idea of using a whip, but the whip is very lack luster. Learning how to specialize the abilities of the weapon it could become a much more useful weapon. Maybe the WP skill for a whip could look like this:
Rend = % chance based on rank to cause bleeding damage equal to 1/4 the damage your strike does. Example: If you hit for 20 damage, you generate a bleeding wound that ticks 5 health every 5 seconds.
Trip = % chance based on rank to trip your target when you attack
Disarm = % chance to disarm your target when you attack
Crack the Whip = % chance to outright stun the target when you attack due to a loud sonic boom from cracking the whip
Penetrate = % chance to bypass your target's armor and do damage as if they were wearing the next armor class below. If the target drops to cloth or has no armor, boost DF by same % on strike.
Speed = constant RT reduction, but with a penalty to your damage.
You could mix the WPs you earn across whatever skills and/or weapon types you like. For example, if you have 100 ranks in OHB, you'd have 5 WP to spend. You decide you want to put 3 into Speed and 2 into Rend. Now your normal attack swings 1 second faster, but at a -15% reduced damage + you have a 20% chance to cause bleeding on every attack you do.
Maybe you're a THW weapon user and you enjoy using your quarterstaff. Perhaps you could have WP skills such as these:
Concuss = % chance to have an attack that outright disorients the target and forces 5 seconds of hard RT
Trip = % chance based on rank to trip your target when you attack
Double Strike = % chance to double strike your target in one attack
Crush = constant % bonus to your DF for all normal attacks
Penetrate = % chance to bypass your target's armor and do damage as if they were wearing the next armor class below. If the target drops to cloth or has no armor, boost DF by same % on strike.
Speed = constant RT reduction, but with a penalty to your damage.
It could be setup like the Shield/Armor specialization skills are. I envision it as something like, every 20 ranks in a weapon skill you earn 1 Weapon Point towards those particular weapons you can specialize in. You can then apply said WP to a specific weapon to help specialize your character with that weapon.
We'll say you're going OHB and have 1 WP because you hit 20 ranks training OHB. Now you get to decide what OHB weapon you want to improve upon and what skill for that weapon you want to spend that point. Maybe your character loves the idea of using a whip, but the whip is very lack luster. Learning how to specialize the abilities of the weapon it could become a much more useful weapon. Maybe the WP skill for a whip could look like this:
| Ranks | Skill | |||||
| Rend | Trip | Disarm | Crack the Whip | Penetrate | Speed | |
| 0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| 1 | 10% | 5% | 5% | 3% | 2% | -1 RT, -35% damage |
| 2 | 20% | 10% | 10% | 6% | 4% | -1 RT, -25% damage |
| 3 | 30% | 15% | 15% | 9% | 6% | -1 RT, -15% damage |
| 4 | 40% | 20% | 20% | 12% | 8% | -2 RT, -10% damage |
| 5 | 50% | 25% | 25% | 15% | 10% | -2 RT, -5% damage |
Rend = % chance based on rank to cause bleeding damage equal to 1/4 the damage your strike does. Example: If you hit for 20 damage, you generate a bleeding wound that ticks 5 health every 5 seconds.
Trip = % chance based on rank to trip your target when you attack
Disarm = % chance to disarm your target when you attack
Crack the Whip = % chance to outright stun the target when you attack due to a loud sonic boom from cracking the whip
Penetrate = % chance to bypass your target's armor and do damage as if they were wearing the next armor class below. If the target drops to cloth or has no armor, boost DF by same % on strike.
Speed = constant RT reduction, but with a penalty to your damage.
You could mix the WPs you earn across whatever skills and/or weapon types you like. For example, if you have 100 ranks in OHB, you'd have 5 WP to spend. You decide you want to put 3 into Speed and 2 into Rend. Now your normal attack swings 1 second faster, but at a -15% reduced damage + you have a 20% chance to cause bleeding on every attack you do.
Maybe you're a THW weapon user and you enjoy using your quarterstaff. Perhaps you could have WP skills such as these:
| Ranks | Skill | |||||
| Concuss | Trip | Double Strike | Crush | Penetrate | Speed | |
| 0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| 1 | 5% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 2% | -1 RT, -35% damage |
| 2 | 10% | 10% | 8% | 6% | 4% | -1 RT, -25% damage |
| 3 | 15% | 15% | 12% | 9% | 6% | -1 RT, -15% damage |
| 4 | 20% | 20% | 16% | 12% | 8% | -2 RT, -10% damage |
| 5 | 25% | 25% | 20% | 15% | 10% | -2 RT, -5% damage |
Concuss = % chance to have an attack that outright disorients the target and forces 5 seconds of hard RT
Trip = % chance based on rank to trip your target when you attack
Double Strike = % chance to double strike your target in one attack
Crush = constant % bonus to your DF for all normal attacks
Penetrate = % chance to bypass your target's armor and do damage as if they were wearing the next armor class below. If the target drops to cloth or has no armor, boost DF by same % on strike.
Speed = constant RT reduction, but with a penalty to your damage.
>>Reducing RT sounds great, but again, this directly reduces creature RT by the same.
>Even assuming it would, I don't understand the problem with that. Can you elaborate?
I assume he means that if a weapon type swings faster for us, it will swing faster for them as well.
>>The logic of a halfling swinging a battle axe faster than a giant is something I honestly can't even picture. :P
I'd have been a halfling if I could do it without being a halfling! :D
The maneuver bonus they get is what I drool over most though. I really wish that didn't exist, since their stat bonuses ALREADY let them dodge better. A flat bonus just for race is redundant - it should be based only on stats. Ahem! Sorry to sidetrack with that rant...
I think that maybe the RT stat should be based on the weapon. Some weapons should require STR and others DEX. Or maybe a combo.
>You [a melee character], also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted.
We have stamina issues too. Sure, we can just attack if we run out of stamina, but you can just use wands, etc.. The fact is, balance should be based on going from 0-Fry, and mana isn't a huge issue in that regard, especially with society skills.
To use it as a balance point vs. squares, is not really a strong argument.
>Even assuming it would, I don't understand the problem with that. Can you elaborate?
I assume he means that if a weapon type swings faster for us, it will swing faster for them as well.
>>The logic of a halfling swinging a battle axe faster than a giant is something I honestly can't even picture. :P
I'd have been a halfling if I could do it without being a halfling! :D
The maneuver bonus they get is what I drool over most though. I really wish that didn't exist, since their stat bonuses ALREADY let them dodge better. A flat bonus just for race is redundant - it should be based only on stats. Ahem! Sorry to sidetrack with that rant...
I think that maybe the RT stat should be based on the weapon. Some weapons should require STR and others DEX. Or maybe a combo.
>You [a melee character], also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted.
We have stamina issues too. Sure, we can just attack if we run out of stamina, but you can just use wands, etc.. The fact is, balance should be based on going from 0-Fry, and mana isn't a huge issue in that regard, especially with society skills.
To use it as a balance point vs. squares, is not really a strong argument.
>>It seems like the vast majority of complaints about melee users are coming from capped players or those near cap. Since none of my melee users have had problems hunting like-level without spells they don't know themselves (rogue, warrior, ranger... one at level 81 and the other two in the high 50's), it seems like the problems are more with capped/near-cap hunting grounds then the combat style (though there are also a couple training choices clung to by a couple more vocal people I'm convinced are contributing as well).
It's certainly true that the issues become more and more apparent the closer to cap you become.
And it's also not that squares can't manage just fine, because that's not what most people are saying.
I don't think you can disagree with the fact that squares have been neglected over recent years. The issue isn't that squares are super weak, but that they are underwhelming and slow compared to other classes, and haven't really had any development in years.
What a square has to work hard for, is just EZ mode for other classes, and yet it's the other classes that keep getting development anyways.
It's certainly true that the issues become more and more apparent the closer to cap you become.
And it's also not that squares can't manage just fine, because that's not what most people are saying.
I don't think you can disagree with the fact that squares have been neglected over recent years. The issue isn't that squares are super weak, but that they are underwhelming and slow compared to other classes, and haven't really had any development in years.
What a square has to work hard for, is just EZ mode for other classes, and yet it's the other classes that keep getting development anyways.
Mostly because it's easy (for values of "easy") to release a bunch of changes to a bunch of spells; see ELR.
And everyone who learns a list, is going to have the WHOLE list available to them, all the time.
.
Whereas with CMans... you learn it. Then you learn it again (and pay more).
Then you learn it again (and pay more).
and possibly...
Then you learn it again (and pay more).
Then you learn it again (and pay more).
And you only have so many of them "in use" at any given time. Things like Martial Stances are great! Choose any ONE of the seventeen you know.
Try telling a spellcaster, "Okay, you know 75 spells. You get to use the Major list, only, this hunt."
.
If CMans were on lists, and your depth of training/knowledge of the CMan list ("I know 88 ranks of CMan Warrior!") determined your SMR roll... (Gee, sounds kind of like Warding check based on spells known in the list...)
Or you could buy a "bucket" of them--Comes with Shadow Mastery & Coup de Grace & Predator's Eye, one rank in each, for only 6 or 7 CMan points--thematically tied together.
.
I was recently testing an item that Wyrom fixed up from a BugItem, and... yeah, let me tell you: there ain't much exciting about being an arms user swinging at 5s with a Two-Hander. Yay.
And everyone who learns a list, is going to have the WHOLE list available to them, all the time.
.
Whereas with CMans... you learn it. Then you learn it again (and pay more).
Then you learn it again (and pay more).
and possibly...
Then you learn it again (and pay more).
Then you learn it again (and pay more).
And you only have so many of them "in use" at any given time. Things like Martial Stances are great! Choose any ONE of the seventeen you know.
Try telling a spellcaster, "Okay, you know 75 spells. You get to use the Major list, only, this hunt."
.
If CMans were on lists, and your depth of training/knowledge of the CMan list ("I know 88 ranks of CMan Warrior!") determined your SMR roll... (Gee, sounds kind of like Warding check based on spells known in the list...)
Or you could buy a "bucket" of them--Comes with Shadow Mastery & Coup de Grace & Predator's Eye, one rank in each, for only 6 or 7 CMan points--thematically tied together.
.
I was recently testing an item that Wyrom fixed up from a BugItem, and... yeah, let me tell you: there ain't much exciting about being an arms user swinging at 5s with a Two-Hander. Yay.
Let me reiterate, I’m not for these, this was just something I came up with thinking of probably how GS maybe SHOULD have implemented magic from the old GS3 Spell prep formulae, to the new 3sec formulae. I do NOT think this should be implemented in its current form. Nor do I want the NERFHAMMER to come from this. I purely wanted a placed to delve into ideas for correcting issues that start to arise later ingame. I guess showing a how a nerf would be implemented isn’t the grandest way, but I think I was fair in the fact that it pretty much would put everyone on even footing, especially since every class can get a direct damage aoe at some point in life. (even if it takes warriors forever to do it)
<<<Player RT and Creature RT could be separated -- I'm not sure why you think it is required they go together. Even if the code for both currently uses the same parent object class, they could be separated/changed.>>>
I’m pretty sure (could be wrong) that it was already stated that pretty much any change to combat, will have an immediate equal effect on creatures.
<<<You, also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted. Swinging a weapon does not cost a resource, like stamina for example, it is essentially free. Casters have mana, a limited resource, imposing a cap of 15 seconds, as per your example, and they'd never be able to fight groups of things that regen, because they would constantly be expending that limited resource. If we are going to truly balance things, then perhaps we need to make swinging a weapon cost Stamina like spells cost Mana and force swings back to a node when they run out?>>>
HP/wounds/encumberance wear down DS in combat, plus stamina is a limited resource…trying to go toe to toe vs an earth elemental one 5 second swing at a time…. that probably takes between 30 seconds to 1 minute to actually kill, and exposes me to a lot of pain, and we didn't even add a second one into that. And its not like wands don’t exist to help offset this for casters early to midlife. This is more to address things that start at about 60 and really start to get destructive at 80 and things start become far more resistant to melee as they wear heavier armor/self redux/self spelled.
<< People would quit the game complaining that they are unplayable when they are still highly viable, just brought back down planet elanthia instead of cloud 9, and I think this would give an option for buffing maelstrom and other like spells into being a bit neater….I get its kinda niche.
Since you are using a Wizard as an example here, I'd ask what level your Wizard is? Two reasons, I'd ask. First being that unless you have played one quite a bit, it's very hard to understand the depth involved and you may just be suffering from the grass being greener on the other side, and, secondly, if we are comparing cap/post-cap, I don't think it's smart to balance the game around cap/post-cap.>>>
I actually didn’t use a wizard for an example, but I’ve built two, one in gs3 that got to 60 when spell prep time existed and was insane, and I have another now at 45 who uses UAC (albeit his primary intent is not combat, another issue) actually what this affects mainly is aoe’s that are already casted in guarded to begin with, I think there’s only two aoe’s that are AS based, cone of elements, and fire spirit with lores? I could be wrong. I would concede that these would have to possibly change somehow with my afore mentioned idea, purely because of the danger it would imply…(probably a damage increase/rt or some sort of disabling mechanism due the brash of elements being released…
<<<It would be nice to see an advanced skill set you could train in for individual weapons.>>>
This would be great too, and I’m sure the GM’s would love to implement this against us lol. Would sure make combat more interesting regardless.
<<<1 - 435 and 1630 would be non-spells since enemies would be standing up before the character has a chance to follow up.
2 - Your comparison with mstrike roundtimes is using either a slow race, a slow weapon, or both in mstrike roundtimes. My elf paladin's mstrike RT is 6 regardless of number of enemies because of high agility, dexterity, and two fast weapon bases (war hammers).>>>
1. Honestly I agree and don’t have an immediate answer for those. Again, I wouldn’t want this, I think it just kinda shows a bit more level footing for how casting vs melee start working through swarms. Those spells would have to be changed, to what and is how is beyond me, and I’ll concede on that.
2. Your right… just for my own sanity I might do just that, although RT should probably be tied to actual stats vs the bonus….
a shame, I was really wanting to use a Bastardsword as a hotswappable between 2h and 1h weapon post cap depending on if i'm grouping/soloing/rp purposes…
-Khaell
<<<Player RT and Creature RT could be separated -- I'm not sure why you think it is required they go together. Even if the code for both currently uses the same parent object class, they could be separated/changed.>>>
I’m pretty sure (could be wrong) that it was already stated that pretty much any change to combat, will have an immediate equal effect on creatures.
<<<You, also, can swing forever, constantly using LTEs if you wanted and stay in the field as long as you wanted. Swinging a weapon does not cost a resource, like stamina for example, it is essentially free. Casters have mana, a limited resource, imposing a cap of 15 seconds, as per your example, and they'd never be able to fight groups of things that regen, because they would constantly be expending that limited resource. If we are going to truly balance things, then perhaps we need to make swinging a weapon cost Stamina like spells cost Mana and force swings back to a node when they run out?>>>
HP/wounds/encumberance wear down DS in combat, plus stamina is a limited resource…trying to go toe to toe vs an earth elemental one 5 second swing at a time…. that probably takes between 30 seconds to 1 minute to actually kill, and exposes me to a lot of pain, and we didn't even add a second one into that. And its not like wands don’t exist to help offset this for casters early to midlife. This is more to address things that start at about 60 and really start to get destructive at 80 and things start become far more resistant to melee as they wear heavier armor/self redux/self spelled.
<< People would quit the game complaining that they are unplayable when they are still highly viable, just brought back down planet elanthia instead of cloud 9, and I think this would give an option for buffing maelstrom and other like spells into being a bit neater….I get its kinda niche.
Since you are using a Wizard as an example here, I'd ask what level your Wizard is? Two reasons, I'd ask. First being that unless you have played one quite a bit, it's very hard to understand the depth involved and you may just be suffering from the grass being greener on the other side, and, secondly, if we are comparing cap/post-cap, I don't think it's smart to balance the game around cap/post-cap.>>>
I actually didn’t use a wizard for an example, but I’ve built two, one in gs3 that got to 60 when spell prep time existed and was insane, and I have another now at 45 who uses UAC (albeit his primary intent is not combat, another issue) actually what this affects mainly is aoe’s that are already casted in guarded to begin with, I think there’s only two aoe’s that are AS based, cone of elements, and fire spirit with lores? I could be wrong. I would concede that these would have to possibly change somehow with my afore mentioned idea, purely because of the danger it would imply…(probably a damage increase/rt or some sort of disabling mechanism due the brash of elements being released…
<<<It would be nice to see an advanced skill set you could train in for individual weapons.>>>
This would be great too, and I’m sure the GM’s would love to implement this against us lol. Would sure make combat more interesting regardless.
<<<1 - 435 and 1630 would be non-spells since enemies would be standing up before the character has a chance to follow up.
2 - Your comparison with mstrike roundtimes is using either a slow race, a slow weapon, or both in mstrike roundtimes. My elf paladin's mstrike RT is 6 regardless of number of enemies because of high agility, dexterity, and two fast weapon bases (war hammers).>>>
1. Honestly I agree and don’t have an immediate answer for those. Again, I wouldn’t want this, I think it just kinda shows a bit more level footing for how casting vs melee start working through swarms. Those spells would have to be changed, to what and is how is beyond me, and I’ll concede on that.
2. Your right… just for my own sanity I might do just that, although RT should probably be tied to actual stats vs the bonus….
a shame, I was really wanting to use a Bastardsword as a hotswappable between 2h and 1h weapon post cap depending on if i'm grouping/soloing/rp purposes…
-Khaell
"I’m pretty sure (could be wrong) that it was already stated that pretty much any change to combat, will have an immediate equal effect on creatures." -- XPaulsenX
Pretty sure that was a player, in the "be careful what you wish for" mode. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. However, if a dagger's RT got lowered, why wouldn't a dagger-using creature be faster with it?
Still, this can be offset just by... making the creatures slower by +1s. Or changing the weapon profile to have a PC-adder field (what they are now) and an NPC-adder field (what creatures use).
Or by some other entirely hidden GSL mechanic that we as players don't need to know about.
Remember what the GM app says: if you can think it, you can do it in GSL. GMs have always said, "Don't worry about how it works when it's implemented. Just tell us what the idea is."
Pretty sure that was a player, in the "be careful what you wish for" mode. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. However, if a dagger's RT got lowered, why wouldn't a dagger-using creature be faster with it?
Still, this can be offset just by... making the creatures slower by +1s. Or changing the weapon profile to have a PC-adder field (what they are now) and an NPC-adder field (what creatures use).
Or by some other entirely hidden GSL mechanic that we as players don't need to know about.
Remember what the GM app says: if you can think it, you can do it in GSL. GMs have always said, "Don't worry about how it works when it's implemented. Just tell us what the idea is."
I mean all of these discussions are cool and all but let's sweep up them eggshells:
LoL 1 second RT with claids because 6th level spell and lore.
Every argument for RT doesn't have a single leg to stand on until we address the fact that it was decided that wizards and bards can get 1-2 second melee RTs with any weapon with zero cool down and zero restrictions.
So balance can go on and get the hell out of here.
Make squares fun again.
.jaired
>LIKE A BOSS
Please rephrase that command.
LoL 1 second RT with claids because 6th level spell and lore.
Every argument for RT doesn't have a single leg to stand on until we address the fact that it was decided that wizards and bards can get 1-2 second melee RTs with any weapon with zero cool down and zero restrictions.
So balance can go on and get the hell out of here.
Make squares fun again.
.jaired
>LIKE A BOSS
Please rephrase that command.
Fair enough, but i think raising weapon DF is probably an automatically givin to enemies since they use weapons too. As far speed, I think the messy part shows itself, when you start factoring celerity/tonis. Not to say we can't, just how you balance it (maybe it doesn't require balancing since the lowest you can go is 1 regardless..).
-Khaell
-Khaell
>I think that maybe the RT stat should be based on the weapon. Some weapons should require STR and others DEX. Or maybe a combo.
Sure. Instead of AGI+DEX for all weapons, alternate bases between something like (STR+AGI)/2 + DEX, or AGI + (STR|DEX)/2, or STR + (AGI&DEX)/2. Some of the heavy weapon bases might not factor in DEX at all. Some of the more complex weapons could conceivably factor in INT, WIS, or LOG. A real full weapons review has been needed for.. since the game began? If it was done right and carefully balanced, every weapon should have a strength and a weakness. Besides maneuver benefits, some could have racial or profession synergies, or bonuses when used with other weapons and armor types. Certain bases that get a bonus vs. certain kinds of critters. Elemental strengths and weaknesses, spiritual, mental, etc. Bonus to parry, or reduction of enemy parry. Phantom padding vs. certain damage types. Weapons that stun better, knock down better, put an enemy into extra RT, poison better, aim better, feint better, berserk better, cause extra bleeding, impale, riposte. One-handed weapons that give a decent bonus when used without a shield. Weapons that give special effects when used in ambush. Weapons that stick to a shield when blocked, halving block DS, or cling to another weapon when parried, rendering them difficult to parry with. Enabling alternate attack verbs, each of which could have different special effects for different weapons.
Sure. Instead of AGI+DEX for all weapons, alternate bases between something like (STR+AGI)/2 + DEX, or AGI + (STR|DEX)/2, or STR + (AGI&DEX)/2. Some of the heavy weapon bases might not factor in DEX at all. Some of the more complex weapons could conceivably factor in INT, WIS, or LOG. A real full weapons review has been needed for.. since the game began? If it was done right and carefully balanced, every weapon should have a strength and a weakness. Besides maneuver benefits, some could have racial or profession synergies, or bonuses when used with other weapons and armor types. Certain bases that get a bonus vs. certain kinds of critters. Elemental strengths and weaknesses, spiritual, mental, etc. Bonus to parry, or reduction of enemy parry. Phantom padding vs. certain damage types. Weapons that stun better, knock down better, put an enemy into extra RT, poison better, aim better, feint better, berserk better, cause extra bleeding, impale, riposte. One-handed weapons that give a decent bonus when used without a shield. Weapons that give special effects when used in ambush. Weapons that stick to a shield when blocked, halving block DS, or cling to another weapon when parried, rendering them difficult to parry with. Enabling alternate attack verbs, each of which could have different special effects for different weapons.
I agree 100% with what Jaired said. Warmages can start swinging around a big two hander with 1 sec of RT around level 30 I believe and bards can do it in 3 seconds at 35. It is a fact that being able to swing ANY weapon with greatly reduced RT provides a combat advantage in regards to melee weapons that trumps any amount of attack strength or other abilities that a profession has at their disposal. Combine this greatly reduced RT with the ability to FEINT in 1 sec and magically knock down your foe and you pretty much have the perfect recipe for a great weapon user.
Squares seem to be cemented into some kind of weird set of rules that make no sense and semis and pures seem to break all these rules simply because, MAGIC.
Does anyone really want to see warmages changed by taking away their ability to swing in 1 sec? I don't. I also don't want to change bards or the casting time of pures.
I DO want to allow squares and other melee weapon users to alleviate some of the hard RT later on when it becomes more of an issue.
Squares seem to be cemented into some kind of weird set of rules that make no sense and semis and pures seem to break all these rules simply because, MAGIC.
Does anyone really want to see warmages changed by taking away their ability to swing in 1 sec? I don't. I also don't want to change bards or the casting time of pures.
I DO want to allow squares and other melee weapon users to alleviate some of the hard RT later on when it becomes more of an issue.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
<<I agree 100% with what Jaired said. Warmages can start swinging around a big two hander with 1 sec of RT around level 30 I believe and bards can do it in 3 seconds at 35
I'm really curious about this statement, as far as bards are concerned. Show me a bard that can CONSISTENTLY keep up 1035 at level 35 for a whole hunt. Even one disregarding lots of other skills and going fully 2x Harness Power probably can't do it for a whole hunt. That's 70 mana roughly every 2 minutes. Bards definitely aren't keeping up their spellsongs and regenning that much mana without major outside help or +mana regen enhancives.
~Aulis
Platinum Co-Guru
Forums Manager
QC'er
I'm really curious about this statement, as far as bards are concerned. Show me a bard that can CONSISTENTLY keep up 1035 at level 35 for a whole hunt. Even one disregarding lots of other skills and going fully 2x Harness Power probably can't do it for a whole hunt. That's 70 mana roughly every 2 minutes. Bards definitely aren't keeping up their spellsongs and regenning that much mana without major outside help or +mana regen enhancives.
~Aulis
Platinum Co-Guru
Forums Manager
QC'er
Voln bards can do it by burning deeds on Symbol of Mana--and the beauty of it is that they can easily and quickly get more than the value of the deed back out of their 1.4 casts of Tonis.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
Forgot to add, I was only trained 1x harness power. I didn't use song of mirrors with 1035 though and I wasn't using any sonic equipment. I was dual wielding coraesine longsword though so a lot of points were tied up in TWC.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
"wizards and bards can get 1-2 second melee RTs with any weapon with zero cool down and zero restrictions." -- AFallace
In fairness: It takes Bards up to 73rd level, being fully singled in the Lore, to achieve -3s RT. (To the whole group, you forgot to mention...) My recollection is that Wizards used to get to the "really good numbers" before 30th level, between Lore and Spell ranks.
.
With that said, though: larger weapons should have been slower than they are, or stats should have offset them less effectively, or they should not have been able to get to be as fast as mid-size weapons [falchion, longsword, morning star].
Mid-size weapons should have been able to get faster than 5s.
.
What if AGI/DEX bonuses were shifted from weapon speed, to instead affect how likely you were to bypass EBP? And/or affect critical results?
In fairness: It takes Bards up to 73rd level, being fully singled in the Lore, to achieve -3s RT. (To the whole group, you forgot to mention...) My recollection is that Wizards used to get to the "really good numbers" before 30th level, between Lore and Spell ranks.
.
With that said, though: larger weapons should have been slower than they are, or stats should have offset them less effectively, or they should not have been able to get to be as fast as mid-size weapons [falchion, longsword, morning star].
Mid-size weapons should have been able to get faster than 5s.
.
What if AGI/DEX bonuses were shifted from weapon speed, to instead affect how likely you were to bypass EBP? And/or affect critical results?
Aulis, I didn't start keep Tonis up on a regular basis until around 70th level, but it was laughably easy as a spellcasting Bard. (Since I was already using Unravel on creatures to act as mana batteries.)
I posted about mana costs for a single hunt at one point over in the Bard category--don't recall level, perhaps mid or late 80s?--and it boiled down to "in a 10 minute hunt/one medley duration, sucked out enough mana to pay for all of the Unravels + Depressions [i.e. they were 'free', costing only time] and also to pay for 20 minutes of Tonis [i.e. twice as much Tonis time as my actual hunt], which essentially made Tonis 'free'."
.
Now again: that's for a pure-SorcerBard, so completely different skill-set than someone swinging melee weapons. (I was in it for the Dodge ranks and RT mitigation.) Cowering in Guarded behind an AirWall the whole time.
Draw from that what conclusions you may.
I posted about mana costs for a single hunt at one point over in the Bard category--don't recall level, perhaps mid or late 80s?--and it boiled down to "in a 10 minute hunt/one medley duration, sucked out enough mana to pay for all of the Unravels + Depressions [i.e. they were 'free', costing only time] and also to pay for 20 minutes of Tonis [i.e. twice as much Tonis time as my actual hunt], which essentially made Tonis 'free'."
.
Now again: that's for a pure-SorcerBard, so completely different skill-set than someone swinging melee weapons. (I was in it for the Dodge ranks and RT mitigation.) Cowering in Guarded behind an AirWall the whole time.
Draw from that what conclusions you may.
I think making smaller weapons more beneficial is certainly a good thing.
But sadly, as I said before, I don't see a blanket melee fix being the answer to the major Square issues.
Each Square class - Warrior, Rogues, and Monk, needs to be looked at individually, because they are so different.
As an example - One change may have a great impact on mstrike, and the ability to dispatch swarms more easily - be it through RT or DF changes, or whatever else. But a rogue isn't really an mstriker. Sure, they can do it, at great expense, but then that just makes them a glorified warrior. A rogue generally cares more about dispatching single targets more easily, and ways to avoid having to fight swarms head on.
Another thing that would be nice, is not just combat effectiveness improvements, but utility improvements. Skills like enchanting, ensorcelling, gem purifying, resistance adding, etc., are all awesome and make loads of silvers. Why can't squares get something? Maybe rogues could add weighting to weapons, and warriors padding to armor (Permanent!). Monks could add flares or something?
Sadly, I know this will probably never happen because of Simucoins and HESS, but it's only fair, honestly.
It's beyond stupid unfair that other classes get such absolutely INCREDIBLE money making skills, and others get jack squat. It's probably the dumbest balance issue in the entire game, and it's been allowed to persist for decades!
Soft RT...the ability to enchant/ensorcell/etc., top tier combat effectiveness....It's like they were born into nobility and we commoners are just expected to take our place as commoners, while the beloved classes get the due of their beloved Simu birthright. I'm sick of being the bastard stepchild of Simu, and it's bloody wrong on so many levels, yet it hardly even gets mentioned because that's just the way it is and always has been!
But sadly, as I said before, I don't see a blanket melee fix being the answer to the major Square issues.
Each Square class - Warrior, Rogues, and Monk, needs to be looked at individually, because they are so different.
As an example - One change may have a great impact on mstrike, and the ability to dispatch swarms more easily - be it through RT or DF changes, or whatever else. But a rogue isn't really an mstriker. Sure, they can do it, at great expense, but then that just makes them a glorified warrior. A rogue generally cares more about dispatching single targets more easily, and ways to avoid having to fight swarms head on.
Another thing that would be nice, is not just combat effectiveness improvements, but utility improvements. Skills like enchanting, ensorcelling, gem purifying, resistance adding, etc., are all awesome and make loads of silvers. Why can't squares get something? Maybe rogues could add weighting to weapons, and warriors padding to armor (Permanent!). Monks could add flares or something?
Sadly, I know this will probably never happen because of Simucoins and HESS, but it's only fair, honestly.
It's beyond stupid unfair that other classes get such absolutely INCREDIBLE money making skills, and others get jack squat. It's probably the dumbest balance issue in the entire game, and it's been allowed to persist for decades!
Soft RT...the ability to enchant/ensorcell/etc., top tier combat effectiveness....It's like they were born into nobility and we commoners are just expected to take our place as commoners, while the beloved classes get the due of their beloved Simu birthright. I'm sick of being the bastard stepchild of Simu, and it's bloody wrong on so many levels, yet it hardly even gets mentioned because that's just the way it is and always has been!
<With that said, though: larger weapons should have been slower than they are, or stats should have offset them less effectively, or they should not have been able to get to be as fast as mid-size weapons [falchion, longsword, morning star].>
I see this a lot and it's rarely clear if the poster has this opinion for mechanical reasons or because it's more realistic that heavier weapons would be swung more slowly. Either way, a hard RT longer then 5 seconds is an eternity in GS combat and really isn't justified when THWs and two-handed Polearms are already harder to aim, cannot be used with a shield (meaning lousy defense against ranged attacks/bolts), and are no more difficult to block or parry then a dagger. For that you get a higher DF weapon... which is great but doesn't completely offset the drawbacks. My ranger with a dagger can get death crits at least as reliably as any warrior with a claid or maul...
If the reason for the opinion is for the purposes of "realism", it doesn't necessarily make sense. Sure, it takes longer to swing a heavier weapon if it's swung from a stationary position like dagger, rapier, falchion, etc would have been. Many weapons, though, were kept in motion, moving the weapon in a pattern (or patterns) around their body as much as possible during a fight or battle. The movement prevented a foe from determining which direction the attack would come from, made it easier to deflect incoming attacks, and made it harder for opponents to find an opening. It also makes the concept of an RT for "swinging" them kind of silly because the attack is more an adjustment and continuation of the direction the weapon's already in rather then an action unto its self. Battle axes, war hammers, morning stars, and some of the longer/heavier swords were all used in this manner because it's easier keep a long and/or heavy weapon in motion and change it's direction as needed then it is to get it into motion in the first place.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
I see this a lot and it's rarely clear if the poster has this opinion for mechanical reasons or because it's more realistic that heavier weapons would be swung more slowly. Either way, a hard RT longer then 5 seconds is an eternity in GS combat and really isn't justified when THWs and two-handed Polearms are already harder to aim, cannot be used with a shield (meaning lousy defense against ranged attacks/bolts), and are no more difficult to block or parry then a dagger. For that you get a higher DF weapon... which is great but doesn't completely offset the drawbacks. My ranger with a dagger can get death crits at least as reliably as any warrior with a claid or maul...
If the reason for the opinion is for the purposes of "realism", it doesn't necessarily make sense. Sure, it takes longer to swing a heavier weapon if it's swung from a stationary position like dagger, rapier, falchion, etc would have been. Many weapons, though, were kept in motion, moving the weapon in a pattern (or patterns) around their body as much as possible during a fight or battle. The movement prevented a foe from determining which direction the attack would come from, made it easier to deflect incoming attacks, and made it harder for opponents to find an opening. It also makes the concept of an RT for "swinging" them kind of silly because the attack is more an adjustment and continuation of the direction the weapon's already in rather then an action unto its self. Battle axes, war hammers, morning stars, and some of the longer/heavier swords were all used in this manner because it's easier keep a long and/or heavy weapon in motion and change it's direction as needed then it is to get it into motion in the first place.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
>>Many weapons, though, were kept in motion, moving the weapon in a pattern (or patterns) around their body as much as possible during a fight or battle. The movement prevented a foe from determining which direction the attack would come from, made it easier to deflect incoming attacks, and made it harder for opponents to find an opening. It also makes the concept of an RT for "swinging"
A couple of points here.
1) The description above that you give, Star, is exactly the reason for the longer RT. The concept isn't that you just swing and you're done. Longer / heavier weapons are 'supposed to take longer' not because of recovering from the swing, but the entire action itself of the engagement / attack. That we conflate the problem to 'my attack doesn't take that long' without considering all of the positioning, misdirection, alignment, posturing and chest-thumping is the result of the attack generating RT.
2) Something else that isn't considered, but should be, is that these systems are interlocking and mutually supporting. It's cheap for warriors to learn weapon skills. And at its core, the design concept was that the warrior would learn multiple weapons and be able to choose the best weapon for the situation, creature, group capabilities, etc. That interlocking thought is largely absent. It affects downstream considerations (RT, crit level capability, attacking full offensive versus guarded, etc.)
Maybe flavorful messaging describing the intricate activities that are going on, and the attack coming somewhere in the final 1/3rd of the total RT might help.
Naw. . .
Doug
A couple of points here.
1) The description above that you give, Star, is exactly the reason for the longer RT. The concept isn't that you just swing and you're done. Longer / heavier weapons are 'supposed to take longer' not because of recovering from the swing, but the entire action itself of the engagement / attack. That we conflate the problem to 'my attack doesn't take that long' without considering all of the positioning, misdirection, alignment, posturing and chest-thumping is the result of the attack generating RT.
2) Something else that isn't considered, but should be, is that these systems are interlocking and mutually supporting. It's cheap for warriors to learn weapon skills. And at its core, the design concept was that the warrior would learn multiple weapons and be able to choose the best weapon for the situation, creature, group capabilities, etc. That interlocking thought is largely absent. It affects downstream considerations (RT, crit level capability, attacking full offensive versus guarded, etc.)
Maybe flavorful messaging describing the intricate activities that are going on, and the attack coming somewhere in the final 1/3rd of the total RT might help.
Naw. . .
Doug
>It's beyond stupid unfair that other classes get such absolutely INCREDIBLE money making skills, and others get jack squat. It's probably the dumbest balance issue in the entire game, and it's been allowed to persist for decades!
Well... only enchanting and purifying have been around that long, but I agree with your overall point. One of my requests in the top 5 thread was having permanent gear upgrade options, which would be one solution to this, but even if that's not viable, then at least I'd still like them all to have great money making abilities.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
Well... only enchanting and purifying have been around that long, but I agree with your overall point. One of my requests in the top 5 thread was having permanent gear upgrade options, which would be one solution to this, but even if that's not viable, then at least I'd still like them all to have great money making abilities.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>>Well... only enchanting and purifying have been around that long, but I agree with your overall point. One of my requests in the top 5 thread was having permanent gear upgrade options, which would be one solution to this, but even if that's not viable, then at least I'd still like them all to have great money making abilities.
I was like 13 years old when I first learned about enchanting. The very very first question that popped in my head was - Why do only wizards get to do it?
It's such an obvious issue of balance and fairness.
Now, it's true, that they added ensorcel and such, but that again is favoring the beloved classes that Simu clearly adores so very much.
But what about the rest?
In fact, this imbalance of utility, even bleeds over into combat imbalance, because it allows these classes to get better gear more easily, since they can more easily afford it.
I was like 13 years old when I first learned about enchanting. The very very first question that popped in my head was - Why do only wizards get to do it?
It's such an obvious issue of balance and fairness.
Now, it's true, that they added ensorcel and such, but that again is favoring the beloved classes that Simu clearly adores so very much.
But what about the rest?
In fact, this imbalance of utility, even bleeds over into combat imbalance, because it allows these classes to get better gear more easily, since they can more easily afford it.
>>In fact, this imbalance of utility, even bleeds over into combat imbalance, because it allows these classes to get better gear more easily, since they can more easily afford it.
I was going to challenge this observation indirectly, by throwing out names of non-wizards (and non-sorcerers) who have some of the best gear in the game. But - there are wizards (and sorcerers) who also fit in that list - so it's a moot point.
Which got me thinking. . . if the entire game can be played with standard 4x gear, and if 5x gear is so easily accessible - isn't the rest just barbie-ing up, with jealousy backing into the harsh feelings?
As an example - Wonderous padding levels on armor. Sounds sweet, right? Who wouldn't want 50 points of padding to help with survival?! That is - right up until it doesn't. Nothing is more deflating than looking at the result and discovering that crit padding was randomized from Wonderous down to Decently, and of course, death ensued. Millions of silver against the 'possibility' of being protected by 50 points of padding is much more to the point.
Doug
I was going to challenge this observation indirectly, by throwing out names of non-wizards (and non-sorcerers) who have some of the best gear in the game. But - there are wizards (and sorcerers) who also fit in that list - so it's a moot point.
Which got me thinking. . . if the entire game can be played with standard 4x gear, and if 5x gear is so easily accessible - isn't the rest just barbie-ing up, with jealousy backing into the harsh feelings?
As an example - Wonderous padding levels on armor. Sounds sweet, right? Who wouldn't want 50 points of padding to help with survival?! That is - right up until it doesn't. Nothing is more deflating than looking at the result and discovering that crit padding was randomized from Wonderous down to Decently, and of course, death ensued. Millions of silver against the 'possibility' of being protected by 50 points of padding is much more to the point.
Doug
The issue I have with the larger weapons is that they can be sped up (i.e. have their penalty mitigated) to be no worse than mid-sized weapons. Those weapons, themselves, canNOT have their speeds offset.
There is a huge difference between an awl-pike at 5s, and a falchion. Or a cudgel.
I would be fine if their speeds can continue to be offset... but they start out higher.
Or if mid-size can then correspondingly be offset lower... but then I have the same issue, shifted down to the small weapons (which would now be seeing longswords & falchions swung at their speeds, and could not correspondingly be sped up).
There is a huge difference between an awl-pike at 5s, and a falchion. Or a cudgel.
I would be fine if their speeds can continue to be offset... but they start out higher.
Or if mid-size can then correspondingly be offset lower... but then I have the same issue, shifted down to the small weapons (which would now be seeing longswords & falchions swung at their speeds, and could not correspondingly be sped up).
"isn't the rest just barbie-ing up, with jealousy backing into the harsh feelings?" -- Doug
Yes.
And MY Barbie has sweeter blinged out gear than YOURS! Neener!
.
(Ardwen & I have even said it to each other--I never got the chance to see if Ken/Ciston felt the same way--but the two of us have agreed that, yes, the one with the most/best toys actually DOES win. <nod>)
Yes.
And MY Barbie has sweeter blinged out gear than YOURS! Neener!
.
(Ardwen & I have even said it to each other--I never got the chance to see if Ken/Ciston felt the same way--but the two of us have agreed that, yes, the one with the most/best toys actually DOES win. <nod>)
>I was going to challenge this observation indirectly, by throwing out names of non-wizards (and non-sorcerers) who have some of the best gear in the game. But - there are wizards (and sorcerers) who also fit in that list - so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point by any means. Just because there are certain people that are wealthy who aren't born into nobility, doesn't mean that it is even close to fair.
It's like saying things were fair for the Chinese gold miners in gold rush California, when there were many 100% racist laws in place to insure that they got the worst claims, and had a harder time making money. Yet they still made more money than most gold miners. So did that mean that it was fair for them then? Preposterous!
>Which got me thinking. . . if the entire game can be played with standard 4x gear, and if 5x gear is so easily accessible - isn't the rest just barbie-ing up, with jealousy backing into the harsh feelings?
>As an example - Wonderous padding levels on armor. Sounds sweet, right? Who wouldn't want 50 points of padding to help with survival?! That is - right up until it doesn't. Nothing is more deflating than looking at the result and discovering that crit padding was randomized from Wonderous down to Decently, and of course, death ensued. Millions of silver against the 'possibility' of being protected by 50 points of padding is much more to the point.
We are talking balance here, not viability. Squares are viable, but they most certainly are not balanced compared to the other classes.
Also, in regards to the weapon RT thing. I was just having a discussion about Sais, which have probably the dumbest RT of any weapon in the game 94 second minimum.). Yet my weapon belt considers them to be like daggers! Why in the world are these not 3 sec RT like daggers? The same goes for rapiers, and other weapons. I do really think weapon RT and DFs could use a review. But overall this won't balance squares by any means.
It's not a moot point by any means. Just because there are certain people that are wealthy who aren't born into nobility, doesn't mean that it is even close to fair.
It's like saying things were fair for the Chinese gold miners in gold rush California, when there were many 100% racist laws in place to insure that they got the worst claims, and had a harder time making money. Yet they still made more money than most gold miners. So did that mean that it was fair for them then? Preposterous!
>Which got me thinking. . . if the entire game can be played with standard 4x gear, and if 5x gear is so easily accessible - isn't the rest just barbie-ing up, with jealousy backing into the harsh feelings?
>As an example - Wonderous padding levels on armor. Sounds sweet, right? Who wouldn't want 50 points of padding to help with survival?! That is - right up until it doesn't. Nothing is more deflating than looking at the result and discovering that crit padding was randomized from Wonderous down to Decently, and of course, death ensued. Millions of silver against the 'possibility' of being protected by 50 points of padding is much more to the point.
We are talking balance here, not viability. Squares are viable, but they most certainly are not balanced compared to the other classes.
Also, in regards to the weapon RT thing. I was just having a discussion about Sais, which have probably the dumbest RT of any weapon in the game 94 second minimum.). Yet my weapon belt considers them to be like daggers! Why in the world are these not 3 sec RT like daggers? The same goes for rapiers, and other weapons. I do really think weapon RT and DFs could use a review. But overall this won't balance squares by any means.
>>It's not a moot point by any means. Just because there are certain people that are wealthy who aren't born into nobility, doesn't mean that it is even close to fair.
>>We are talking balance here
Not trying to be antagonistic, as I agree with some of your points from a 'fairness' perspective. I just don't believe they have anything to do with game balance.
Saying weapon speed / DF is a 'game balance' issue in particular sets my teeth on edge - by the very definition of 'same for everyone' weapon speed / DF is balanced in the game system. Now, is it fair the wizard profession can sustain something with a weapon that the master of arms profession cannot? Totally different.
In terms of balance, though - wizards and warriors advance (one of the game enforced milestones) at a rough parity.
And as a brief sidebar, I think the challenge with sai is that they're envisioned to be an offhand weapon, not a dual weapon combo (not my call, just sayin'.) I do think, though, that with the advent of UAC and the 2 second jab, that any dagger-like weapon should be permitted a minimum 2 second RT. Not sure how I feel about the (hyperbolized) perspective of swinging a claid in 1 second because square discussion.
To me, game balance is enforced by the game system. Profession skill points, levels, racial bonuses / penalties, etc., all fall into this category. Wealth is not 'enforced' by the system. For the game system to enforce wealth and make it a milestone that can be balanced across professions. . . well, we've had snippets of those conversations like 'character attuned', 'silver valuation', 'premium-point only availability', 'different currency' and the like. I'm not sure we've had a strong, positive, winning conversation, though. That's probably because we want it, but don't want to work for it, and wouldn't like having to live with it; or at least that's my surmise.
Doug
>>We are talking balance here
Not trying to be antagonistic, as I agree with some of your points from a 'fairness' perspective. I just don't believe they have anything to do with game balance.
Saying weapon speed / DF is a 'game balance' issue in particular sets my teeth on edge - by the very definition of 'same for everyone' weapon speed / DF is balanced in the game system. Now, is it fair the wizard profession can sustain something with a weapon that the master of arms profession cannot? Totally different.
In terms of balance, though - wizards and warriors advance (one of the game enforced milestones) at a rough parity.
And as a brief sidebar, I think the challenge with sai is that they're envisioned to be an offhand weapon, not a dual weapon combo (not my call, just sayin'.) I do think, though, that with the advent of UAC and the 2 second jab, that any dagger-like weapon should be permitted a minimum 2 second RT. Not sure how I feel about the (hyperbolized) perspective of swinging a claid in 1 second because square discussion.
To me, game balance is enforced by the game system. Profession skill points, levels, racial bonuses / penalties, etc., all fall into this category. Wealth is not 'enforced' by the system. For the game system to enforce wealth and make it a milestone that can be balanced across professions. . . well, we've had snippets of those conversations like 'character attuned', 'silver valuation', 'premium-point only availability', 'different currency' and the like. I'm not sure we've had a strong, positive, winning conversation, though. That's probably because we want it, but don't want to work for it, and wouldn't like having to live with it; or at least that's my surmise.
Doug
