Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Yes, I think a good point has been brought up here.
A lot of what we are calling 'balance' issues are ah, rather OOG issues. Some classes are able to deal with the Secondary Cash Market much better than others...being that AoE hunting by (most) pures and bards is very easy to do, but is not as easy for squares and such. Also, kill speed is another issue that is MUCH LESS of an issue if the Cash Market concerns are taken out of the equation.
Now, not ALL of these issues center around that, but quite a few do. Arena, Silver Farming, etc are all more easily done by some classes than others. This translates into real life $$$. Thus, people feel poorly done by.
The question: Should we balance classes around that?
I would say No.
GM Naionna at 11:41 PM
Whick is so pretty. it's a shame he has to talk.
The fact that you guys do not seem to see it as an issue absolutely baffles me.
They are such valuable skills that they are worth millions of silvers! Clearly they are very much a big deal, and not some truffling bonus ability that these classes have.
And I even have an enchanting wizard, so it's not mere jealously.
They are such valuable skills that they are worth millions of silvers! Clearly they are very much a big deal, and not some truffling bonus ability that these classes have.
And I even have an enchanting wizard, so it's not mere jealously.
>A lot of what we are calling 'balance' issues are ah, rather OOG issues. Some classes are able to deal with the Secondary Cash Market much better than others...being that AoE hunting by (most) pures and bards is very easy to do, but is not as easy for squares and such. Also, kill speed is another issue that is MUCH LESS of an issue if the Cash Market concerns are taken out of the equation.
I don't think Duskruin, the cash market, or the secondary market can be called OOG considering how integrated they are.
Even if I go along with calling them OOG, though... Lots of big things happen that involve silvers. Daily exchanges of enchanting and ensorcelling services being sold, WPS merchants every month, small events with raffles several times each year, huge Ebon Gate raffles once a year, and of course gigantic silver events like auctions or CCF every couple of years (at least lately).
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
I don't think Duskruin, the cash market, or the secondary market can be called OOG considering how integrated they are.
Even if I go along with calling them OOG, though... Lots of big things happen that involve silvers. Daily exchanges of enchanting and ensorcelling services being sold, WPS merchants every month, small events with raffles several times each year, huge Ebon Gate raffles once a year, and of course gigantic silver events like auctions or CCF every couple of years (at least lately).
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>I don't think Duskruin, the cash market, or the secondary market can be called OOG considering how integrated they are.
Beg your pardon?
Duskruin I will acknowledge because it is an actual place in the game, but the cash market and the secondary market... two things that occur expressly and only outside of the game, are not OOG? That is blurring the lines a bit (ok, a LOT) too far, don't you think?
Avaia, player of
Beg your pardon?
Duskruin I will acknowledge because it is an actual place in the game, but the cash market and the secondary market... two things that occur expressly and only outside of the game, are not OOG? That is blurring the lines a bit (ok, a LOT) too far, don't you think?
Avaia, player of
>the cash market and the secondary market... two things that occur expressly and only outside of the game
Maybe we have different meanings of "secondary market"... I'm talking about things like people reselling raffle wins for silvers. That definitely happens in game.
I do agree the cash market being in game is more of a stretch. Some of the cash market is definitely out of game, so I hesitated to include it, but then there are fuzzy situations I'm not sure how to classify, like someone buying Simucoin items and reselling them for silvers. Even if the buyer didn't pay cash, the seller did, so... I actually would call that the cash market, but I could see how someone might say otherwise.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
Maybe we have different meanings of "secondary market"... I'm talking about things like people reselling raffle wins for silvers. That definitely happens in game.
I do agree the cash market being in game is more of a stretch. Some of the cash market is definitely out of game, so I hesitated to include it, but then there are fuzzy situations I'm not sure how to classify, like someone buying Simucoin items and reselling them for silvers. Even if the buyer didn't pay cash, the seller did, so... I actually would call that the cash market, but I could see how someone might say otherwise.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
<<<They are such valuable skills that they are worth millions of silvers! Clearly they are very much a big deal, and not some truffling bonus ability that these classes have.>>>
Like those who seem to be playing the game purely enchanting/ensorcelling and then selling on LNET and the only prices listed is cash? :)
I would agree with Leafiara in terms of how that has become fairly integrated ingame through LNET.
Beyond that, it seems that many agree that there does need to be some help to shore up melee in general, lot of good ideas, and probably relooking at either guildskills, or the professions themselves is necessary. Clearly some have advantage over others, before cap, that only becomes more invasive on the march towards endgame. This was never meant to focus at postcap, because in the end postcap goes as far as the player wants with the 'end in sight' being after one masters literally every skill....
I didn't want this to run into the enchant conversation that was already posted by Armyjen, but there is something to say for only two classes that actually raise there own gear stats relatively cheaply, while everyone else is at the mercy of merchants/OTS and item attrition through powercreep. While i'm in favor of one, because price/time is fairly low, the other just seems archaic, with a sole purpose of lining someones pocket, but then I digress, that is not the point of my original post.
One other thing, I'm not quite sure why burst of Swiftness is NOT a cman that is released to those classes that primarily reside with melee, I think at rank 5 that pretty automatically places a -1 second RT for its cost...of course I think the increasing cost for CMANs is a bit ridiculous. For most its already an expensive skill, making increasing costs doesn't make sense, as they are already fairly well balanced based on square/semi/pure...
-khaell
Like those who seem to be playing the game purely enchanting/ensorcelling and then selling on LNET and the only prices listed is cash? :)
I would agree with Leafiara in terms of how that has become fairly integrated ingame through LNET.
Beyond that, it seems that many agree that there does need to be some help to shore up melee in general, lot of good ideas, and probably relooking at either guildskills, or the professions themselves is necessary. Clearly some have advantage over others, before cap, that only becomes more invasive on the march towards endgame. This was never meant to focus at postcap, because in the end postcap goes as far as the player wants with the 'end in sight' being after one masters literally every skill....
I didn't want this to run into the enchant conversation that was already posted by Armyjen, but there is something to say for only two classes that actually raise there own gear stats relatively cheaply, while everyone else is at the mercy of merchants/OTS and item attrition through powercreep. While i'm in favor of one, because price/time is fairly low, the other just seems archaic, with a sole purpose of lining someones pocket, but then I digress, that is not the point of my original post.
One other thing, I'm not quite sure why burst of Swiftness is NOT a cman that is released to those classes that primarily reside with melee, I think at rank 5 that pretty automatically places a -1 second RT for its cost...of course I think the increasing cost for CMANs is a bit ridiculous. For most its already an expensive skill, making increasing costs doesn't make sense, as they are already fairly well balanced based on square/semi/pure...
-khaell
I want to start by saying I primarily play a bard, so I am possibly biased, but I also play a monk, a warrior, rogue, and most recently a sorcerer. I don't have issues with my melee hunters (my archer rogue is kind of in a rut if I'm being honest but still able to hunt).
I get wanting to be faster, I want to 3x at least one skill, or be able to wear platemail, but there are supposed to be professional differences, and being fast is afaik an elementalist ability (air lore mages/bards). I know some do not want to hear it or acknowledge when it comes up but paladins and warriors are very effective at every level from my experience and do not have issues in combat. I know some people like to hunt without spells, and I feel like there are areas with spellburst, spell stripping, etc abilities, certainly cap/post cap areas that accommodate this kind of personal idiosyncratic hunting philosophy, but I don't think the melee combat should be balanced around the principal of no outside spells. As a bard at cap I use strength, that's about it, so I know for a fact outside spells are not required for melee hunting at any level and to present an argument based on the premise that it is, seems a flawed approach. If you want to fight in melee combat faster, a way already exists hunt with a bard and have them share song of tonis, boom problem solved. I dislike the proposed reduction in melee RT because it would be just another way (see 405 in the elr and loresong permanence) to work around needing bards.
What I haven't heard mentioned so far is if you were to speed up everyone else, how would you balance that for bards who only advantage is speed relative to squares. Seeing as we have roughly equal TD (but crappier CvA), no redux, higher training costs, less effective combat skills i.e., no armor/shield/guild skills).
Respectfully,
Archales
I get wanting to be faster, I want to 3x at least one skill, or be able to wear platemail, but there are supposed to be professional differences, and being fast is afaik an elementalist ability (air lore mages/bards). I know some do not want to hear it or acknowledge when it comes up but paladins and warriors are very effective at every level from my experience and do not have issues in combat. I know some people like to hunt without spells, and I feel like there are areas with spellburst, spell stripping, etc abilities, certainly cap/post cap areas that accommodate this kind of personal idiosyncratic hunting philosophy, but I don't think the melee combat should be balanced around the principal of no outside spells. As a bard at cap I use strength, that's about it, so I know for a fact outside spells are not required for melee hunting at any level and to present an argument based on the premise that it is, seems a flawed approach. If you want to fight in melee combat faster, a way already exists hunt with a bard and have them share song of tonis, boom problem solved. I dislike the proposed reduction in melee RT because it would be just another way (see 405 in the elr and loresong permanence) to work around needing bards.
What I haven't heard mentioned so far is if you were to speed up everyone else, how would you balance that for bards who only advantage is speed relative to squares. Seeing as we have roughly equal TD (but crappier CvA), no redux, higher training costs, less effective combat skills i.e., no armor/shield/guild skills).
Respectfully,
Archales
<What I haven't heard mentioned so far is if you were to speed up everyone else, how would you balance that for bards who only advantage is speed relative to squares. Seeing as we have roughly equal TD (but crappier CvA), no redux, higher training costs, less effective combat skills i.e., no armor/shield/guild skills).
Well, the easiest solution is to stop relying on stupid RT and bring the game from the 90s into the 2000s with the use of individual ability cooldowns. The result would be that you are forced to use different abilities rather than chaining the same skill back to back endlessly the way we more or less do now. This then creates the opportunity to introduce skills that modify those cooldowns. For instance, instead of reducing RT you might have a passive reduction to ability cooldowns. This would make everyone faster, but still provide a speed advantage to bards in terms of their ability to recover their cooldowns faster. Make sense?
Well, the easiest solution is to stop relying on stupid RT and bring the game from the 90s into the 2000s with the use of individual ability cooldowns. The result would be that you are forced to use different abilities rather than chaining the same skill back to back endlessly the way we more or less do now. This then creates the opportunity to introduce skills that modify those cooldowns. For instance, instead of reducing RT you might have a passive reduction to ability cooldowns. This would make everyone faster, but still provide a speed advantage to bards in terms of their ability to recover their cooldowns faster. Make sense?
I feel like there are lots of professional skills are available to make combat varied, but its apparently not used because you can just attack faster, if I'm understanding the issue correctly. Why not just make those skills faster? In fact, can't you do that already with quickstrike + cmans etc?
If bards had access to any martial stances, guild/armor/shield skills that had cooldowns this would be a more compelling argument for me, but the way skills are handed out currently and in the past, between professions would make me skeptical that giving up speed on the front end would leave me better off in any way.
Archales
If bards had access to any martial stances, guild/armor/shield skills that had cooldowns this would be a more compelling argument for me, but the way skills are handed out currently and in the past, between professions would make me skeptical that giving up speed on the front end would leave me better off in any way.
Archales
Not really, Archales. Yes, you can qstrike and mstrike and there are a handful of CMANs that mostly serve as setups. But most of what we do here is repeat the same attack over and over. Even for pures that have massive spell circles, for GS redundancy has always been a glaring issue. How could it be otherwise when all spells share the same opportunity cost? It's the same problem we observe with melee weapons, except that is far worse because no matter what weapon you use the bulk of combat consists of little more than ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. It's a terribly outdated system.
Why use any of those inferior weapons/attacks/spells when you can just spam a better effect back-to-back endlessly for the same amount of RT? Imagine if WoW had been designed that way? Think about how ridiculous that would seem. Rotations? What are those? Just cast your most powerful attack over and over again! There's your GS rotation!
Uh oh. I said some dirty words. "WoW" and "rotations". Let the criticism begin! But let's not point out the obvious, that any rotation of skills is better than ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. Bards/wizards are super unique for being able to do that in 1s. Are we really fighting to hold onto THAT? It's better than waiting 3-5s between attacks...but not by much. And should everyone else really be waiting that long just to perform the same attack again? No wonder everyone just scripts through their hunts. This combat system is BORING!
Why use any of those inferior weapons/attacks/spells when you can just spam a better effect back-to-back endlessly for the same amount of RT? Imagine if WoW had been designed that way? Think about how ridiculous that would seem. Rotations? What are those? Just cast your most powerful attack over and over again! There's your GS rotation!
Uh oh. I said some dirty words. "WoW" and "rotations". Let the criticism begin! But let's not point out the obvious, that any rotation of skills is better than ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. Bards/wizards are super unique for being able to do that in 1s. Are we really fighting to hold onto THAT? It's better than waiting 3-5s between attacks...but not by much. And should everyone else really be waiting that long just to perform the same attack again? No wonder everyone just scripts through their hunts. This combat system is BORING!
<It's the same problem we observe with melee weapons, except that is far worse because no matter what weapon you use the bulk of combat consists of little more than ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.>
I always found AMBUSH to be far more efficient against anything that's not immune to crits (stupid golems)...
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 always found AMBUSH to be far more efficient against anything that's not immune to crits (stupid golems)...
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.
"You may not use attackA" so, okay, I use attackB, and then I use attackC, and now I'm allowed to use attackA again... Is there any actual difference between these attacks? Or is it just a matter of "disable this capability because we want to force you to use another."?
I'm a big fan of combo effects, or ritual magic, and would like to see more of them. Things like water/cold attack, PLUS a fire attack, against a stone creature. Geologic cracking, good stuff. More of it.
But that should be a user CHOICE--if I do this plus that, I get the combo effect--rather than a requirement.
.
One of these is "I can choose to do different things in order to get something extra." The other is "you must use a different attack macro. Because."
One I'm in favor of. The other does nothing for me, and does not improve my gaming experience.
I'm a big fan of combo effects, or ritual magic, and would like to see more of them. Things like water/cold attack, PLUS a fire attack, against a stone creature. Geologic cracking, good stuff. More of it.
But that should be a user CHOICE--if I do this plus that, I get the combo effect--rather than a requirement.
.
One of these is "I can choose to do different things in order to get something extra." The other is "you must use a different attack macro. Because."
One I'm in favor of. The other does nothing for me, and does not improve my gaming experience.
Some combat systems are a lot more involved, or realistic, but they become so cumbersome that nothing is really gained by it. I'd rather see a game where it's not necessary to script-hunt, or script while hunting, (or script much at all, really) than one where you need to send several different commands in the span of a few seconds.
>> Some combat systems are a lot more involved, or realistic, but they become so cumbersome that nothing is really gained by it. I'd rather see a game where it's not necessary to script-hunt, or script while hunting, (or script much at all, really) than one where you need to send several different commands in the span of a few seconds.
Agree. I really don't want to turn Gemstone combat into an arcade style game.
-- Robert
Wex winks before saying, "Cravin' some winterberry ale? Head on over to White Haven!"
Agree. I really don't want to turn Gemstone combat into an arcade style game.
-- Robert
Wex winks before saying, "Cravin' some winterberry ale? Head on over to White Haven!"
I'd like to see a combat system similar to the old "Xenogears" RPG for Playstation. It was 3 basic attacks if I'm remembering correctly, but each character could chain those attacks together to create powerful effects or combos.
No one is advocating for a weakening of current combat strength. If you just want to stand there and swing, go for it. Nothing will change for current players.
I do think many folks want to see improvements that will reward players that want to chain attacks or combos or cooldowns. Players that choose to use the new system would be rewarded with faster paced combat and increased combat effectiveness. I'm not sure if it's possible but maybe leaving two handed weapons as is and trying to implement a new system for one handed edged weapons and blunt weapons might be a good start.
The main scripting issue to me is that combat is so simplistic and doesn't reward skill. There's no real difference between a script and human other than that the script is often faster to react than the player which provides an incentive to script.
If you make the combat strategic and complex, I think manually playing is superior due to the the need for strategic decisions to be made by the player to adapt to changing circumstances. You see this with mobs that have telegraph their moves via a visual or sound that allows the player to implement a timely stun or dodge. The closest thing in Gemstone is the Duskruin Arena traps I think.
So we can bash WoW and other games like it, but I don't think any high end raiding guilds are botting or scripting their way through content.
No one is advocating for a weakening of current combat strength. If you just want to stand there and swing, go for it. Nothing will change for current players.
I do think many folks want to see improvements that will reward players that want to chain attacks or combos or cooldowns. Players that choose to use the new system would be rewarded with faster paced combat and increased combat effectiveness. I'm not sure if it's possible but maybe leaving two handed weapons as is and trying to implement a new system for one handed edged weapons and blunt weapons might be a good start.
The main scripting issue to me is that combat is so simplistic and doesn't reward skill. There's no real difference between a script and human other than that the script is often faster to react than the player which provides an incentive to script.
If you make the combat strategic and complex, I think manually playing is superior due to the the need for strategic decisions to be made by the player to adapt to changing circumstances. You see this with mobs that have telegraph their moves via a visual or sound that allows the player to implement a timely stun or dodge. The closest thing in Gemstone is the Duskruin Arena traps I think.
So we can bash WoW and other games like it, but I don't think any high end raiding guilds are botting or scripting their way through content.
| 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! |
<"You may not use attackA" so, okay, I use attackB, and then I use attackC, and now I'm allowed to use attackA again... Is there any actual difference between these attacks? Or is it just a matter of "disable this capability because we want to force you to use another."?
<I'm a big fan of combo effects, or ritual magic, and would like to see more of them. Things like water/cold attack, PLUS a fire attack, against a stone creature. Geologic cracking, good stuff. More of it.
But that should be a user CHOICE--if I do this plus that, I get the combo effect--rather than a requirement.
.
<One of these is "I can choose to do different things in order to get something extra." The other is "you must use a different attack macro. Because."
<One I'm in favor of. The other does nothing for me, and does not improve my gaming experience.
Choice sounds great. Who doesn't want to have a choice rather than be "forced"? The problem with that in the context of game design is that you actually remove meaningful choices. This is a huge problem for Gemstone. It leads to overlap between abilities. Why use skill X when skill Y does the same thing in the same amount of time but with a stronger effect and no cooldown? This is also why those combos don't work out. Why use the combo which takes twice as long when you have a single spell that does the job more reliably and in half the time (or when a single spell cast twice is more effective than the combo!)?
In the GS combat system there is nothing stopping you from always casting the best spell - again and again and again. It's technically a choice, but what kind of choice is it really when your options are the best spell or...inferior options that take just as long but do less?
<I'm a big fan of combo effects, or ritual magic, and would like to see more of them. Things like water/cold attack, PLUS a fire attack, against a stone creature. Geologic cracking, good stuff. More of it.
But that should be a user CHOICE--if I do this plus that, I get the combo effect--rather than a requirement.
.
<One of these is "I can choose to do different things in order to get something extra." The other is "you must use a different attack macro. Because."
<One I'm in favor of. The other does nothing for me, and does not improve my gaming experience.
Choice sounds great. Who doesn't want to have a choice rather than be "forced"? The problem with that in the context of game design is that you actually remove meaningful choices. This is a huge problem for Gemstone. It leads to overlap between abilities. Why use skill X when skill Y does the same thing in the same amount of time but with a stronger effect and no cooldown? This is also why those combos don't work out. Why use the combo which takes twice as long when you have a single spell that does the job more reliably and in half the time (or when a single spell cast twice is more effective than the combo!)?
In the GS combat system there is nothing stopping you from always casting the best spell - again and again and again. It's technically a choice, but what kind of choice is it really when your options are the best spell or...inferior options that take just as long but do less?
I will note for the record that the less-effective spell also frequently comes with a lesser mana cost, so there are, in fact, plenty of times you may want to use it. The top two for me are, "I'm running low on mana (and can't force a pulse)", and "I'm hunting with somebody, and want to give everyone a crack at the experience."
.
Twenty years ago, there literally WAS no choice: you could attack, or you could not, but only one of those got you any experience.
Now you can attack.
You can target a specific spot first (set up by taking a leg, or take out the shield (-20 DS and no Block any more, or go for lethality right away, or...).
You can get in one--or even two if Two-Weapons, also something that didn't exist way back when--attack against a bunch of opponents.
You can do some <other kind of special, be it a set-up [tackle] or finisher [coup, which comes with buff-for-later]>.
And you can choose to do pretty much any of them, faster than normal [lots of QStrike options].
Honestly, I submit that "here's five different things you can choose from" actually is a pretty full buffet of options.
.
But what is signally lacking is anything that makes combinations (other than "it is now stunned" or "now lacking a shield" or "now prone"). UCS has it in spades, where one attack directly leads to an improvement of the next (of some random type).
.
Twenty years ago, there literally WAS no choice: you could attack, or you could not, but only one of those got you any experience.
Now you can attack.
You can target a specific spot first (set up by taking a leg, or take out the shield (-20 DS and no Block any more, or go for lethality right away, or...).
You can get in one--or even two if Two-Weapons, also something that didn't exist way back when--attack against a bunch of opponents.
You can do some <other kind of special, be it a set-up [tackle] or finisher [coup, which comes with buff-for-later]>.
And you can choose to do pretty much any of them, faster than normal [lots of QStrike options].
Honestly, I submit that "here's five different things you can choose from" actually is a pretty full buffet of options.
.
But what is signally lacking is anything that makes combinations (other than "it is now stunned" or "now lacking a shield" or "now prone"). UCS has it in spades, where one attack directly leads to an improvement of the next (of some random type).
UCS is a good example, in my opinion, of an effective combat system that rewards those that want a bit more depth and those that just want to mash an attack button.
Jabs (Weak attacks, but low RT) does have a higher chance to tier up though
Punch (Good all around attack)
Grapple (High chance to knock foe down, but not as much damage as punch)
Kick (Most damage but longest RT)
You can use any one of the attacks (jab, punch, grapple, or kick) and you will eventually kill your target.
or
You can begin with a jab that leads into a punch, then the foe is made vulnerable to a kick, and the opponent dies.
I'd be happy with implementing this type of system for each melee weapon skill (OHE, OHB, THW). From there, the attacks could add bonuses based on the weapon used.
For example, if you converted OHB weapons to this type of system... whipes would gain a much higher chance to knock opponents over compared to maces when the GRAPPLE EQUIVALENT attack is used by the player.
Another example, if you converted OHE weapons to this type of system... rapiers would gain +1 critical tier when used with the JAB EQUIVALENT attack by players.
Jabs (Weak attacks, but low RT) does have a higher chance to tier up though
Punch (Good all around attack)
Grapple (High chance to knock foe down, but not as much damage as punch)
Kick (Most damage but longest RT)
You can use any one of the attacks (jab, punch, grapple, or kick) and you will eventually kill your target.
or
You can begin with a jab that leads into a punch, then the foe is made vulnerable to a kick, and the opponent dies.
I'd be happy with implementing this type of system for each melee weapon skill (OHE, OHB, THW). From there, the attacks could add bonuses based on the weapon used.
For example, if you converted OHB weapons to this type of system... whipes would gain a much higher chance to knock opponents over compared to maces when the GRAPPLE EQUIVALENT attack is used by the player.
Another example, if you converted OHE weapons to this type of system... rapiers would gain +1 critical tier when used with the JAB EQUIVALENT attack by players.
| 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! |
Unarmed combat is a nice innovation. But it's still slow. While your monk or whatever is still tiering up, the cleric in the next room has paralyzed 8 enemies with 316, then
killed them all with a cast of 335. Or the wizard 3 rooms over has cleared an entire room with core tap. And yes, that's exactly how my cleric and wizard hunt.
Mind you, I have a rogue who uses UAC to hunt; but she's an ambusher. Ambushing from hiding gives an automatic tier up, so she needs at most 2 strikes for a kill.
I'd hate to try that sort of thing out in the open.
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
killed them all with a cast of 335. Or the wizard 3 rooms over has cleared an entire room with core tap. And yes, that's exactly how my cleric and wizard hunt.
Mind you, I have a rogue who uses UAC to hunt; but she's an ambusher. Ambushing from hiding gives an automatic tier up, so she needs at most 2 strikes for a kill.
I'd hate to try that sort of thing out in the open.
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
Okay so what if everything stayed the same.
Nothing changed.
No one has to worry about their bigshot script breaking.
Attack stays the same.
Ambush stays the same.
Nothing changes.
...but we were given options?
I know we can't jab, punch, grapple, and kick.
What if we could light attack, medium attack, and... regular attacks? Or dare I suggest heavy attacks beyond that? (Or would those just be ambushes?)
Light attacks are fast attacks that have lower DFs or whatever but can be achieved in 1-2 seconds depending on the weapon type? Medium attacks go from there.
This could apply to cmans and guild skills as well.
cman light sweep.
A 2 second sweep that has a lower success rate.
cman medium sweep.
A 3 second sweep that has a slightly lower success rate.
cman sweep.
A 5 second sweep that has the success rate we all know and love.
cman heavy sweep
A 6 second sweep that also causes a stun on knockdown.
As far as melee attacks go... yeah... weapon types need a very serious look.
That said, what if you could:
Attack light kobold?
Attack heavy kobold?
As far as folks asking about qstrike? I'm suggesting it should just go away. It was a fine idea for a while but lets be really fair and realistic. A quickstrike could result in losing about half of your stamina pool in one useage.
ThAt SeEmS bAlAnCeD tO mE!
...in a game where Celerity exists?
A 6th level, 6 mana spell with no cool down?
Quickstrike seems balanced?
Just thoughts from the peanut gallery!
.jaired
>LIKE A BOSS
Please rephrase that command.
Nothing changed.
No one has to worry about their bigshot script breaking.
Attack stays the same.
Ambush stays the same.
Nothing changes.
...but we were given options?
I know we can't jab, punch, grapple, and kick.
What if we could light attack, medium attack, and... regular attacks? Or dare I suggest heavy attacks beyond that? (Or would those just be ambushes?)
Light attacks are fast attacks that have lower DFs or whatever but can be achieved in 1-2 seconds depending on the weapon type? Medium attacks go from there.
This could apply to cmans and guild skills as well.
cman light sweep.
A 2 second sweep that has a lower success rate.
cman medium sweep.
A 3 second sweep that has a slightly lower success rate.
cman sweep.
A 5 second sweep that has the success rate we all know and love.
cman heavy sweep
A 6 second sweep that also causes a stun on knockdown.
As far as melee attacks go... yeah... weapon types need a very serious look.
That said, what if you could:
Attack light kobold?
Attack heavy kobold?
As far as folks asking about qstrike? I'm suggesting it should just go away. It was a fine idea for a while but lets be really fair and realistic. A quickstrike could result in losing about half of your stamina pool in one useage.
ThAt SeEmS bAlAnCeD tO mE!
...in a game where Celerity exists?
A 6th level, 6 mana spell with no cool down?
Quickstrike seems balanced?
Just thoughts from the peanut gallery!
.jaired
>LIKE A BOSS
Please rephrase that command.
I also think a bit of disparity has come from "Weapon flares that are awesome for pures".
Like Blink.
This isn't an argument against Blink, but where is the square counterpart?
I mean a rogue can't even 'bond' to a weapon.
What if a melee weapon flared a melee ability akin to a Blink weapon?
You hit and you get a free sweep?
You hit and get a free disarm?
You hit and you get a free vanish?
What if on a parry you get a free, zero RT, from the open counter attack via a riposte type skill?
.jaired
>LIKE A BOSS
Please rephrase that command.
Like Blink.
This isn't an argument against Blink, but where is the square counterpart?
I mean a rogue can't even 'bond' to a weapon.
What if a melee weapon flared a melee ability akin to a Blink weapon?
You hit and you get a free sweep?
You hit and get a free disarm?
You hit and you get a free vanish?
What if on a parry you get a free, zero RT, from the open counter attack via a riposte type skill?
.jaired
>LIKE A BOSS
Please rephrase that command.
<Honestly, I submit that "here's five different things you can choose from" actually is a pretty full buffet of options.
In fairness, you're also using as your frame of reference "20 years ago". That's setting the bar pretty low, wouldn't you say? You're basically saying, "Compared to absolutely nothing we have tons of options!"
In fairness, you're also using as your frame of reference "20 years ago". That's setting the bar pretty low, wouldn't you say? You're basically saying, "Compared to absolutely nothing we have tons of options!"
<<<Squares are obviously too slow. How is the solution to add massive amounts of RT to casters? This is an absolutely horrible idea. What were you thinking??>>>
Obviously, you failed to get the point.
The point was not to mass nerf, the point was if we did this the game would be balanced but, we should NOT do this, as it would be going backwards (I even stated that I was not for this) The point was to open a discussion showing the differences in how pures/melee fight, and to get others to input ideas into how we could do something as an alternative to what I expressed. could I have done this differently, I suppose, but I figure if I showed how it could be balanced towards melee, this would show people who don't play melee, basically what us melee have to deal with....
Qstrike is nice, except that it sucks up a good chunk of stamina and is not really 'sustainable' even at 85 I only have 141 stamina, I did like qstrike -5 mstrike for an open 4 target strike.. reduced my RT to 6, AND sucked 100 stamina....so now all I can do stamina wise, is a shield strike, and attack attack attack, cycling one or two spells if possible... does it help? I guess. Does it really address the problem? no.
Khaell
Obviously, you failed to get the point.
The point was not to mass nerf, the point was if we did this the game would be balanced but, we should NOT do this, as it would be going backwards (I even stated that I was not for this) The point was to open a discussion showing the differences in how pures/melee fight, and to get others to input ideas into how we could do something as an alternative to what I expressed. could I have done this differently, I suppose, but I figure if I showed how it could be balanced towards melee, this would show people who don't play melee, basically what us melee have to deal with....
Qstrike is nice, except that it sucks up a good chunk of stamina and is not really 'sustainable' even at 85 I only have 141 stamina, I did like qstrike -5 mstrike for an open 4 target strike.. reduced my RT to 6, AND sucked 100 stamina....so now all I can do stamina wise, is a shield strike, and attack attack attack, cycling one or two spells if possible... does it help? I guess. Does it really address the problem? no.
Khaell
>>Mind you, I have a rogue who uses UAC to hunt; but she's an ambusher. Ambushing from hiding gives an automatic tier up, so she needs at most 2 strikes for a kill.
I'd hate to try that sort of thing out in the open.
Well, this is kind of misleading. It's not automatic. It usually tiers up, but it's not guaranteed. Also, it seems to have the same chance to hit the area aimed for as standard ambush does, so it's not always going to hit where you want.
It's very common for me to have to ambush 3, sometimes 4 times, to death crit with UAC.
Also, open UAC is pretty dang good compared to ambush, if you can get 6 attacks with a focused mstrike in 6 seconds.
Sadly, this all pales in comparison to what non-squares can accomplish.
Where us rogues really struggle, is swarms, because we are single target killers. I think one problem though, is that to fix it, most people tend to ask for changes to be made that put us on more equal terms with other classes in this regard. But as I said before, I think the better solution is to try to improve the square classes' strengths - in the case of a rogue, single target assassination. Perhaps improve our ability to single out critters in a swarm safely? We have divert, but when you're in a swarmy area, like almost all of the capped areas, you're often just diverting them into a different swarmy room!
At cap, there are also issues with stealth, such as rooms with environs in the rift as well as super perceptive rift crawlers and other undead, griffins in OTF, etc., that are able to search you out even if 3x hiding. Maybe if hiding was a more reliable defense, additions could be made to improve our ability to single out critters using stealth. This is most notably an issue at capped levels, and only certain hunting grounds before then.
Also, the fact that we can't 3x PF (When even empaths can!) is one of the biggest travesties in the entire mangler, if you ask me. That coupled with having to burn so much stamina on shadow mastery (which should bloody be passive for God's sake!), leaves us with little stamina for things like vanish and qstrike.
A little idea I tossed around, for rogues, is to change divert, so that it diverts the attention of everything in the room, so that if you ambush a critter, the other critters will be distracted and won't attack you. This would not give a rogue the ability to AoE a swarm, but it would allow for them to play to their strength of single target killing, and be able to assassinate single targets.
Sorry, I know this thread is not about rogues specifically, by any means. But as I've been saying - I think the issues with squares (and any melee issues in general) should be addressed differently for each class. Above are just some examples using a rogue, since that is what I am most familiar with.
I'd hate to try that sort of thing out in the open.
Well, this is kind of misleading. It's not automatic. It usually tiers up, but it's not guaranteed. Also, it seems to have the same chance to hit the area aimed for as standard ambush does, so it's not always going to hit where you want.
It's very common for me to have to ambush 3, sometimes 4 times, to death crit with UAC.
Also, open UAC is pretty dang good compared to ambush, if you can get 6 attacks with a focused mstrike in 6 seconds.
Sadly, this all pales in comparison to what non-squares can accomplish.
Where us rogues really struggle, is swarms, because we are single target killers. I think one problem though, is that to fix it, most people tend to ask for changes to be made that put us on more equal terms with other classes in this regard. But as I said before, I think the better solution is to try to improve the square classes' strengths - in the case of a rogue, single target assassination. Perhaps improve our ability to single out critters in a swarm safely? We have divert, but when you're in a swarmy area, like almost all of the capped areas, you're often just diverting them into a different swarmy room!
At cap, there are also issues with stealth, such as rooms with environs in the rift as well as super perceptive rift crawlers and other undead, griffins in OTF, etc., that are able to search you out even if 3x hiding. Maybe if hiding was a more reliable defense, additions could be made to improve our ability to single out critters using stealth. This is most notably an issue at capped levels, and only certain hunting grounds before then.
Also, the fact that we can't 3x PF (When even empaths can!) is one of the biggest travesties in the entire mangler, if you ask me. That coupled with having to burn so much stamina on shadow mastery (which should bloody be passive for God's sake!), leaves us with little stamina for things like vanish and qstrike.
A little idea I tossed around, for rogues, is to change divert, so that it diverts the attention of everything in the room, so that if you ambush a critter, the other critters will be distracted and won't attack you. This would not give a rogue the ability to AoE a swarm, but it would allow for them to play to their strength of single target killing, and be able to assassinate single targets.
Sorry, I know this thread is not about rogues specifically, by any means. But as I've been saying - I think the issues with squares (and any melee issues in general) should be addressed differently for each class. Above are just some examples using a rogue, since that is what I am most familiar with.
<Obviously, you failed to get the point.
<The point was not to mass nerf, the point was if we did this the game would be balanced but, we should NOT do this, as it would be going backwards (I even stated that I was not for this) The point was to open a discussion showing the differences in how pures/melee fight, and to get others to input ideas into how we could do something as an alternative to what I expressed. could I have done this differently, I suppose, but I figure if I showed how it could be balanced towards melee, this would show people who don't play melee, basically what us melee have to deal with....
<Qstrike is nice, except that it sucks up a good chunk of stamina and is not really 'sustainable' even at 85 I only have 141 stamina, I did like qstrike -5 mstrike for an open 4 target strike.. reduced my RT to 6, AND sucked 100 stamina....so now all I can do stamina wise, is a shield strike, and attack attack attack, cycling one or two spells if possible... does it help? I guess. Does it really address the problem? no.
Oh, don't worry. Everyone who isn't completely new to the game understands that pures are way faster than squares. A lot of players don't seem to care for some reason, but they've probably been playing the game for 20+ years and accepted this weirdness long ago.
<The point was not to mass nerf, the point was if we did this the game would be balanced but, we should NOT do this, as it would be going backwards (I even stated that I was not for this) The point was to open a discussion showing the differences in how pures/melee fight, and to get others to input ideas into how we could do something as an alternative to what I expressed. could I have done this differently, I suppose, but I figure if I showed how it could be balanced towards melee, this would show people who don't play melee, basically what us melee have to deal with....
<Qstrike is nice, except that it sucks up a good chunk of stamina and is not really 'sustainable' even at 85 I only have 141 stamina, I did like qstrike -5 mstrike for an open 4 target strike.. reduced my RT to 6, AND sucked 100 stamina....so now all I can do stamina wise, is a shield strike, and attack attack attack, cycling one or two spells if possible... does it help? I guess. Does it really address the problem? no.
Oh, don't worry. Everyone who isn't completely new to the game understands that pures are way faster than squares. A lot of players don't seem to care for some reason, but they've probably been playing the game for 20+ years and accepted this weirdness long ago.
<That coupled with having to burn so much stamina on shadow mastery (which should bloody be passive for God's sake!)>
Or, in the very least, remove that stupid cooldown it didn't have when it was first released. Why it was considered so game-breaking for the two professions that are supposed to be masters of the shadows to be able to sneak in 1 sec is still beyond me.
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.
Or, in the very least, remove that stupid cooldown it didn't have when it was first released. Why it was considered so game-breaking for the two professions that are supposed to be masters of the shadows to be able to sneak in 1 sec is still beyond me.
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.
>a swarmy area, like almost all of the capped areas
This is the crux of the rogue problem for me--and a problem in the overall game. We end up with builds where things that made them fun to the player in the design of (say) level 0-80 hunting fall apart in the design of level >81 hunting and they end up not liking it after all the journey. This isn't always because of swarms, but that's the biggest factor to me.
Going by my experience with an elf paladin, I'm guessing that Khaell's woes with giant paladins (which started the thread) are a good example of this.
I didn't think my pally was all that impressive until level 70 or so when she was hunting minos and it dawned on me that ever since the Stronghold (58-67) she'd been near-constantly mstriking and that it would probably be the way for the rest of her life. (Answer: it was.) In pre-Stronghold hunting she rarely attacked more than one thing at a time, so her agidex bonus didn't shine since single swings would have been 5 seconds for any race.
It would be the opposite as a giant paladin--I'd probably feel like I got slammed with heavy mstriking RT out of nowhere. My paladin dodged a bullet, but I've definitely had builds go unexpectedly south on me or I had to relegate a specific playstyle to bandits only, so I do feel for Khaell.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
This is the crux of the rogue problem for me--and a problem in the overall game. We end up with builds where things that made them fun to the player in the design of (say) level 0-80 hunting fall apart in the design of level >81 hunting and they end up not liking it after all the journey. This isn't always because of swarms, but that's the biggest factor to me.
Going by my experience with an elf paladin, I'm guessing that Khaell's woes with giant paladins (which started the thread) are a good example of this.
I didn't think my pally was all that impressive until level 70 or so when she was hunting minos and it dawned on me that ever since the Stronghold (58-67) she'd been near-constantly mstriking and that it would probably be the way for the rest of her life. (Answer: it was.) In pre-Stronghold hunting she rarely attacked more than one thing at a time, so her agidex bonus didn't shine since single swings would have been 5 seconds for any race.
It would be the opposite as a giant paladin--I'd probably feel like I got slammed with heavy mstriking RT out of nowhere. My paladin dodged a bullet, but I've definitely had builds go unexpectedly south on me or I had to relegate a specific playstyle to bandits only, so I do feel for Khaell.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
My rogue ended up getting spells.
A) To hunt with spells in spell burst areas
B) To deal with swarms; namely, e-wave.
Should I HAVE to do so to hunt at or near cap? One would think not, but in practice, yes I did.
A typical hunt encounter for her goes like this:
Activate CMan Asp for -2 RT
E-wave swarmy room
hide
ambush target head
rehide
CMan asp again
ambush target head again, hopefully for a kill
loot corpse and leave room before other enemies stand up and counterattack
(all the while praying that no griffin flies in to screw my rehiding)
Compare this with my cleric.
Enter swarming room
incant 316. Everything in room freezes (well clearly not magic immune critters, but other that ...)
incant 335. Everything in room gets hit with 3 waves of massive damage
If anything is still alive, a shot of 317 usually finishes the job. Room is emptied in an average of 12 seconds.
I could give examples from my mage and sorceress, but it would be redundant. Let's just say that both can clear
a swarmed room in seconds with similar AOE attacks.
Squares need some love. I like the idea of a rogue using mass diversion to bring the room contents down to a manageable number of targets (1-2 critters)
And rogues need to triple train in PF ... at a reduced cost from what is is now! My warpath has an ungodly amount of stamina which she actually uses. A cast of sympathy followed by open M-Strike is fun. With her stamina pool, she doesn't need to rest; she can chain several M-Strikes ... keeping the critters sympathetic in the meanwhile, of course. My rogue can manage a few vanishes and Asps but then she has to rest.
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
A) To hunt with spells in spell burst areas
B) To deal with swarms; namely, e-wave.
Should I HAVE to do so to hunt at or near cap? One would think not, but in practice, yes I did.
A typical hunt encounter for her goes like this:
Activate CMan Asp for -2 RT
E-wave swarmy room
hide
ambush target head
rehide
CMan asp again
ambush target head again, hopefully for a kill
loot corpse and leave room before other enemies stand up and counterattack
(all the while praying that no griffin flies in to screw my rehiding)
Compare this with my cleric.
Enter swarming room
incant 316. Everything in room freezes (well clearly not magic immune critters, but other that ...)
incant 335. Everything in room gets hit with 3 waves of massive damage
If anything is still alive, a shot of 317 usually finishes the job. Room is emptied in an average of 12 seconds.
I could give examples from my mage and sorceress, but it would be redundant. Let's just say that both can clear
a swarmed room in seconds with similar AOE attacks.
Squares need some love. I like the idea of a rogue using mass diversion to bring the room contents down to a manageable number of targets (1-2 critters)
And rogues need to triple train in PF ... at a reduced cost from what is is now! My warpath has an ungodly amount of stamina which she actually uses. A cast of sympathy followed by open M-Strike is fun. With her stamina pool, she doesn't need to rest; she can chain several M-Strikes ... keeping the critters sympathetic in the meanwhile, of course. My rogue can manage a few vanishes and Asps but then she has to rest.
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
Leafiara you bonked it pretty well on the nose.. I want to say my hardest time pre 50 was hunting around 30-40, but as I crawled through, I thought the area that would have killed me the most (MTK's) was actually fairly easy, even pushing into minotaurs, its as I've moved past 60 though I noticed the oddities with Mstrike. As the game starts to build to increasingly harder things (which i'm fine with) I find myself using Mstrike almost exclusively if I can afford it, and not just as an offensive maneuver, but as a defensive one as I stun. My spell rotation is usually 1614, 1630, Mstrike, 1630, Mstrike etc etc. When I saw how my RT was just climbing, plus mobs maneuvering a lot more often (3 bandits triple mstriking at almost the same time, or rt/stun locking). Things start to stack insanely fast. Comparative to Leafiara's paladin who effectively has half the RT, on her own, I am by far more exposed to danger, and the AS offset that I get as a Giantman doesn't cover that. Now we can go into how 1630 and mstrike should do the trick, but AT or around level 1630 doesn't really do much damage wise, assuming I get through my own hinderance, and mstrike has quite the inherent ability to just flat out get parried or blocked, and we haven't touched trying to fight solo on the creatures with plate (bowels anyone?)
I will concede that 'I chose my race'. That is true, but who knows everything about game mechanics and how the come into play at/near cap, and who applies that to their first character, especially when the class is relatively new (khaell was built right after official release, and I've been in an out since, my origional character was a wizard that I gave to a friend, and I did playtest the paladin prior to release when that option was available, but that was fairly limited in and of itself).
I will concede that 'I chose my race'. That is true, but who knows everything about game mechanics and how the come into play at/near cap, and who applies that to their first character, especially when the class is relatively new (khaell was built right after official release, and I've been in an out since, my origional character was a wizard that I gave to a friend, and I did playtest the paladin prior to release when that option was available, but that was fairly limited in and of itself).
