[Gear] State Stabilization

[Grunbag]

I am agree that higher gear will make game imbalance , and we're all agree to find a solution for that .
But I don't think, like jaycub said, that giving a invisible force/formula that will decide how we hit/get hited is a good idea . Why would I spend a lot of time in one character , trying to get gear and weapon while I just can up a lot of toons , gear them in full annihilator and being competitive the same ?

[Foltestik]

Why people who play it years 24/7 cant have huge advantages agains players who just come to T4?
its same like lowbie scenarios if you are in T1 and you are lvl1 you get asskicked but when you are lvl 10 (or what is max lvl now) you just kick ass, same with end gear.

And party can fight with zerg if that party overgear the zerg. then that party can :| that zerg and that is good

[Grunbag]

Why people who play it years 24/7 cant have huge advantages agains players who just come to T4?
its same like lowbie scenarios if you are in T1 and you are lvl1 you get asskicked but when you are lvl 10 (or what is max lvl now) you just kick ass, same with end gear.

And party can fight with zerg if that party overgear the zerg. then that party can :| that zerg and that is good

Having a huge advantage is a bad idea , it cause game imbalance . this is not t1 where you can get to lvl 10 in few hours.

[sotora]

To make it perfectly clear:

Ignore the details of implementation for now.

The focus, for the moment, should be: Is my analysis correct? Does inconsistent state cause balance issues? If not, what part of my post is wrong?

IMHO There is nothing left to discuss if you separate issue into such small bit. Because answer to :
"does stats increase change balance?" is of course yes and question in rhetoretical in first place, thus leaving no place for discussion.

[Cimba]

• - Ultra-simple: Gear has a tier level, and the sum of the tier levels of a player's gear is used in an opposed check when interacting with another party. The relative factor, with a suitable cap, is used to modify the output of certain calculations (for example, for damage.)
  
  - A little more complex: Gear awards points for a secondary type of specialization - for critical hit rate, etc. The number of points allocated in total is compared when two players interact, and this is used to scale the total application of those bonuses from this secondary specialization to that interaction. In this way, a character in Sovereign having allocated x% crit from secondary specialization will receive that bonus in full against a character in lower tier gear, but it will not apply at all against a foe in Sovereign himself.
  
  Bear in mind that to satisfy state stabilization, it is not enough to provide counters to a certain specialization or ability that is offered with gear. The effects MUST BE NEGATED AUTOMATICALLY between players of the same rank, or players will violate the state by having different extremes of customisation. This is why absolute power creep is so bad.

I don't get what the advantage of any kind of background equalizing system would be. If you don't want power creep, just remove it. Bring down the bonuses of all future sets to the level you want to balance around and leave it at that. Having a system that needs to be tweaked everytime a new set comes out is just a pain in the ass.

Consider currently we do not experience any significant imbalance due to gear in T4. Ruin is relatively very easy to get, and is statistically comparable to Anni/Merc. The difference from full Anni to full Invader is quite significant, and THAT will be the sort of game state that is acceptable under state stabilization. You will certainly be able to tell the difference of a +2 tier change, however, it will not be the +6 tier change that you experienced on Live that was broken beyond comprehension.

Or, had someone made the appropriate rebuttal that would lead to rejecting this proposal, it could be.

Not really. At least for some classes. As an example just look at the main stats for BW/Sorc (Crit/Int/M.Power/Wound) of the Invader set (arsenal of war) and compare it with the Merc set. Depending on how you transfer the %based bonus to stats you will at least draw even with Merc. Factoring in the above average importance of crit to these classes will probably put the Merc set far ahead of the Invader.
By using invader you just get a bunch of rubbish stats in addition that don't have any measureable effect like willpower and weaponskill. The same is true for Ruin.

This actually good for the state stabilization. When future sets are just so bad that no ones going to use them than you have a stable state.

[altharion1]

Just make the stat increases for future sets insignificant/marginal. Do not increase stats that have an exponential affect on offensive/defensive power. WL sets for example:

[Grunbag]

Just make the stat increases for future sets insignificant/marginal. Do not increase stats that have an exponential affect on offensive/defensive power. WL sets for example:

The suggestion is to have the same type of stats for every sets?

[altharion1]

The suggestion is to have the same type of stats for every sets?

Yes/no/maybe. No idea what you are asking.

[BrockRiefenstahl]

Spoiler:

Example 2: Armor Stacking

Armor stacking is often cited in Engineer/Magus discussions, as well as in the context of physical RDPS in general. The ability of classes to stack insane amounts of armour, aside from imbalancing the game by significantly changing mitigation percentages, results in a huge slash to the viability of physical classes that are not given the ability to negate that armor to a significant degree. This situation can be avoided entirely by... not allowing extremes of armor.

This seems so off... If a class invests that much amount of his limited "stats", he will lack heavy at the damage side. If you play a certain playstyle, lets say 3 man ganking squads or something like that, and you have a hard time because there are 30 WHs around, why wouldnt you do something to increase your chances against this certain class? (Or let it be any other melee, it's an example).

This kind of logical flaw seems to be in multiple of the OTs points.

Spoiler:

- No item proc or ability which is a straight increase in power is allowed to exist. Any such effect designed to increase a character's power must have a drawback which maintains the character's overall power level while enabling different strategies and means of play.

A procc on an item is already a drawback in terms of the loss in base stats.
As far as I understand there is an Itembudget per Item.
Giving it a drawback + the loss of base stats = What the hell Oo?
There would remain 2 out of 10 cases, where you would take the Procc vs an equivalent with higher base stats + no drawbacks...

No offense here and I understand all the concerns. But this seems to get completely away from its roots.
Why not make 1 set with options for customization in terms of looks and thats it.
Lets play FPS roxxorskill Warhammer where only Numbers and Buttonmash count's, where gear choice and specialisations (planint theorycrafting) does not help you at all.

Hope you can understand what I mean. But this is a way of dumbing down the possibilities of so many things...

[Grunbag]

The suggestion is to have the same type of stats for every sets?

Yes/no/maybe. No idea what you are asking.

You're showing same stats for each sets .
It means you want that annihilator to sovereign set gives the same stats, and just increase the value of the set stats ?