nocturnalguest wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:50 am
GONDOR wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 12:11 am
Healthy reasonable bias mostly from solo yolo perspective
No mate, it doesnt work like that.
Rising Anger people often mention on forum is only a solo pick. If you slot it somewhere else you are doing it wrong as for 2h group play you pick dwarven riposte and for large scale SnB there is no need for grudge gain tactic.
Spenders usage policy you mention is not anyhow connected with reality, you cant and dont sit at 100 not spending it.
Damage numbers assuming no other class has such high scaled values would be totally out of any sane control if you are allowed to ride on 100 grudge.
And imagine how this match would look like if IB would be constantly at 100 grudge (while in reality grudge gain with dwarven riposte is so big in proper match that you are quite easily reach 100 tbf) -
https://killboard.returnofreckoning.com ... 4bd019abff
You can also e.g. track Oathmeal regular SCs and be same way amused.
I warn you guys, stop this lobby - all you will achieve if you continue this total bias is just randomly attract unneccesary ror team attention and get what you asked for in most horrible way, with huge downscale of each damaging ability. It will be worst possible execution - you will be constantly at 100 but everything else would be untied from it (because everything comes with a price you know, huh), so being at 100 would mean nothing.
I know for sure that its very frustrating to look at "what is possible at high level play" vs. "what random joe usually achieves", but this complexity is one of IBs identity that has to be protected for greater good.
Earthshatter you mention is not only aoe slow, but hard hitting finisher to interrupt GBF burst. Making it more accesable further increase deadliness of IB rotation by alot.
Im also sad for GnM be gone and its either not coming back at all unless balance team changes or comes back being useless crap, but my reasons are different, its not because it being a cool solo tool, but because it breaks longterm settled role of SnB AP battery for meta. In terms of soloing, you still can do 13-5-5 in regen gear, or do whatever with 7 warlord + 2 vic/triumph. Your bias makes some sense only for soloing which is not how balance should be done.
And then i say bias i dont mean its something bad, im biased as well, i like solo&pug too but in discussions we have to look at much bigger picture.
It does work like this - again, grudge management isn't an issue, initial grudge generation is. That's what the suggestion is about.
Also; I want to be so clear about this, because this is why we have so many issues discussing grudge changes, and people seem to think because Dwarven Riposte exists, grudge generation is fine.
Over performing tactic does not justify flawed core mechanic.
It doesn't matter which class it is - if a class is deemed fine because a tactic exists; we have a problem. The class should be fine day one, right out of the gate. Tactics are a way to introduce flexibility into specs and classes, to allow them to adapt to challenges and meta. When you have tactics necessary to make a class function, it's extremely weak design.
The whole value of Rising Anger over Dwarven Riposte is agency; Rising Anger lets you be consistent in your Grudge Generation in every scale of combat. That's its magic - it will always give you the same control, same capability, and same ability in any situation. Dwarven Riposte requires people to hit you or your guardee - something that happens in 99% of fights, but there are times when you'll find yourself wishing you had Rising Anger on.
You do and can ride at 100 grudge - the rotation is the same as BG; apply scaling skills at 100, while they tick use grudge spenders, and rebuild your grudge. It's always the case.
I've done plenty of premade 24 cities (when cities first dropped I did all 3 Sov sets on Royals in premade 24s, mostly as 2H too), but yeah, these days I mostly small scale or solo roam - just because it's harder and more engaging than WB play. The lower down the scale-spectrum you go, the more the grudge disparity and loss of agency becomes apparent.
Answer this: has anyone enjoyed playing, or has played, their Ironbreaker without any Grudge Tactics? What was your experience? The only time I've done it was with SNB, and it was extremely mid in anything outside of the most intense fights - 24v24 open or city.
Also, a common 2h spec is still 13-0-9; taking Earthshatter. Oathbound doesn't stack with Earthsplit's buff, so it's not that unusual. You can hit 67% parry in that spec (or more), vs the 77% Oathbound brings. It's not gamebreaking for 2H to have easier access to Earthshatter, it won't turn the game on its head and it won't make IB spike that more insane. If it was as scary as you seem to think it will be; every Ironbreaker would be running it over Oathbound. It'll be good, no doubt, but again, not to the point of being even close to broken.
Further, balancing on top end isn't how balance is done. Balance should be done on the bell curve, and top-end is watched for over-performance and value tweaks, not core mechanics. Top end in most games is usually full of outliers or gifted players - ROR's pop is pretty small. The gulf between the top and the rest can be pretty wide though; there are plenty of players who will never get close to that level of performance, and that has much larger flow on affects to everyone else.
IMHO the over focus on trying to tweak and look at Warband combat is also unhealthy - warbands are at the peak of a RoR player's journey, and getting into organised warbands with a non-meta class isn't easy. New players don't have the social framework to get in, they don't start their player journey with 23 friends, and there's a huge gap in a player's journey from unorganised to organised. Often the focus is on tweaking organised; with the unorganised being "just group up". There is a full player journey across that bridge, from level 1, to organised warbands, and it is littered with player attrition along the way.
I also don't agree with the view that for things to be balanced everything needs a tradeoff. That mentality is how we've ended up in this mess already, as there are unquantified and unqualifiable values to what people consider a reasonable tradeoff. For some, it's resources, for others it's mastery. IMHO every spec should be just good - make everything good and fun to play. If we're serious about improving the numbers of the game's player base, that's what it takes. You shouldn't be forced to play the class you chose in some weird mandated spec, because the style you wanted to play is beyond inefficient. It costs us players - the worst, (absolutely the worst) thing in ROR for our players is that we tell new players "Your class or spec sucks, you can't play it until XYZ point, or never because it sucks. GLHF" Like cool, little wonder people go and play something else.
A new one that tbh, genuinely triggers me, is when new players are excited and eager to play a class (like WH or WP), ask a question about its challenges, and get told "You should l2p on a tank, it's an easy class, this game very complex, requires a big brain, l2p first" - people come into the game, wanting to play a specific thing; and then get told don't bother because it's bad and most people don't want to party with them. What a huge shame.
It's beyond unreasonable that certain specs are brainless, unfun, or unengaging, because "it's not the classes intended playstyle", or "it's how it's meant to be played". Unsurprisingly, this is why we have bad class skew and excessive player attrition.
. Many careers have this kind of tactic tax going on for them
