Recent Topics

Ads

[Gear] State Stabilization

These proposals have passed an internal review and are implemented in some way on the server. Review for specific implementation details.
User avatar
blaqwar
Posts: 471

Re: State stabilization.

Post#181 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:45 pm

I guess finding the spot is the trick then (hah, that's what she said), your idea is to balance from Invader. My memories of live servers back then are fuzzy but from what I recall it was a relatively balanced state before the craziness of defensive Warlord procs on MDPS where they could solo 3-4 people. But it still feels like TTK was much lower (people died faster) than it is right now and in ORvR morale bombing was rampant with bugged morale gain so who knows what the actual combat would be like.

My point is that it's impossible to figure out what the sweetspot is and since this isn't a matter that can be simply experimented on (as you can't just completely forsake balancing and introduce new retail-like sets until you figure out what you like) I'll continue supporting the original idea of a self-balancing mechanic even at the cost of top tier combat not being fresh. I now believe the career changes and small improvements to the game's underlying and periphery systems (+ dungeons) along with an influx of new people should be able to sustain the server.

Oh and I don't get your sheet-rock analogy, I imagine it's one of those thin rock tiles fancy people put on the wall? I'm poor I'm only familiar with wallpaper. :P

Ads
User avatar
Stmichael1989
Posts: 184

Re: State stabilization.

Post#182 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:53 pm

Dabbart wrote: Find a spot to balance from, where ALL the various classes are seen to be either at, or close to their Prime lvls of Power.
This is why I prefer the horizontal progression method. It does exactly that at the current gear level and maintains that even footing throughout the game. This way, no time is lost on class balance, and new players aren't doomed to slog through 4 tiers of gear to compete.
StMichael - 40 Warrior Priest
Elhim - 40 Shadow Warrior
Cullexus - 40 Witch Hunter
Teuton Codpiece - 40 Knight
Gritkicker - 40 Slayer

User avatar
TenTonHammer
Posts: 3807

Re: State stabilization.

Post#183 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:16 pm

Dabbart wrote:
Spoiler:
TenTonHammer wrote:
Dabbart wrote:when it comes to finding a tier that combat is balanced towards, maybe aza is right and the balance forums should be locked. But not until Sov. I don't believe you balance at end gear. But attempting to balance around anni is equally worthless. A lot of classes simply don't have their man stats capped yet.

With more sets, and the ability to mix and match, quite a few ohysical classes will be able to switch to WS talis, or defensive sets.
Once again explain to me by why core class balance should be dictated by gear sets?

At its core; gear, procs, set bonuses etc should not be what dictates class balance nor should the be band aids that suddenly cover up core class flaws/inferiorities

Also with talis and potions you can already reach soft cap on your main stat, hell with ferocious assault on my mara i can reach 1050 str
Good for you and your mara. Ofc, Ferocious assault doesn't stack with Chosen Auras or Pots, so meh. But if you actually want to pay attention to my point, What is your WS? GIve yourself another 2 gear lvls(IE conq/inv) and what will your stats look like? Before any procs, % increases, or other set bonus'. Just your base stats. How much more armor pen/survivability will you gain from the next 2 gear progressions? Now, imagine that you are NOT a dedicated DPS, you are infact a BO. A couple more gear progressions, all of a sudden you can cap out a few stats, and start to get REALLY dangerous, while actually being partly tanky... Now think of AM/Sham. How are their new class mechanics going to function in RR70gear? Will they still be "balanced" comparatively to how they are now? Who knows! I don't think so however. Anyone who thinks anni v anni works the same as Warlord v Warlord is forgetting Live... And if they do function the same, then why the feck even bother to grind up said gear?

Class Balance will be GREATLY affected by gear, because that is where 80% of our stat benefits come from... Your opinion of gear is just plain weird. So, all class balance(or the great majority of it) should be almost entirely irrelevant of gear? How the hell do you propose that? Take out all gear stat progression and add in an auto stat progression based on RR? The arguement on what Procs or set bonus' is irrelevant, since WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE. Do you know for a fact what the 5p Inv bonus will be? Cause I don't. I don't happen to believe that the devs will just roll out oldschool gear set bonus' after all of this balancing talk...

But AGAIN TENTONHAMMER you basically just start the argument you want to have. My point stands, from what Lvl should Balance be set towards? if you can't handle discussing it from a gear perspective then fine, from a RR perspective. Should we balance END GAME and everything before it based upon RR40 and below? Cause that is the currently Gear lvl we are at, and what we are attempting to balance from atm. That is my point. But feel free to keep pushing for some ridiculously complicated balancing system where gear has no impact on class balance... And then you can laugh as no one bothers to grind up gear, cause why? It has no impact on class balance..

TLDR: My points go entirely side tracked.
Spoiler:
Why do I needed to worry about armor pen when I had cuttig claw and linearly scaling piercing bite?


You balance classes once they hit end game at level 40 and not before

So what is the argument were going to use in the future "oh you don't need to buff x class, their compleatly viable if you have 5 peice sov" then you create situations of classes needing mandatory gear items to be competitive

If with later gear sets cause a class that is precived to be balanced to become op then that is not the classes fault but rather the effects of a poorly designed power creep set, why would you nerf a class becuase a set bonus/procs makes them too strong?

"Ermagad 5 peice sov Shammy is 2op5me lets nerf the whole class instead of bringing the set back in line"

?? Like how does that sound reasonable to you

Now you say they need to take a place and balance from it yet even you don't know what the at point is

My argument is against az's threat to shut down the balance fourm, and it is that gear should not have any real consideration in balance disscussions which is what the balance fourms have done so far arguments should not be made like: "it is not an issue that Bg does not have a core morale pump becuse they have access to X set/shield that lets them build morale on block"
Off topic, not contributing positively to the discussion, as per here, 6. No arguments to item procs or abilities.

Class balance (abilities, tactics, morales) both supersedes and ignores the effect of all items. Any unusual effect (proc, ability) granted by an item MUST NOT be a prerequisite for a class's viability. Do not appeal to an item proc or item ability when discussing the balance of any class. - do not continue to argue this point.

- Gerv


Balance should be looked at from their core class prespective once they have reached 40

Now the other poster talked about whether engie and other pRDPS will need armor pen abilites with the increased scaling of armor, when the devs for some reason, instead of choosing the 1.40 armor system which had t4 invader to sov instead of was it will be now which is ruin to sov basically, was kind of a promise to rein the rampant armor scaling additionally their was talk of a "t5" zone using re proposed assets where high geared players would go to pvp

But now you can see the problem tha az is trying to deal with of having soo manny sets in 1 tier that their is a huge gap in performance between the "highest and lowest" sets
Image

User avatar
footpatrol2
Posts: 1093

Re: State stabilization.

Post#184 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:35 pm

Spoiler:
So just going to throw this into consideration. Its slightly off-topic but on topic.
Banners.

Banners have been part of the game since the beginning. They can add additional crit chance/crit defense/15% stat boost/boost to defensive stats and they also boost morale gain. Banners also serve as a money sink to the economy. This further adds more customization to your group as far as stats are concerned.

If your running a melee group you'd take a melee focused banner to exaggerate your strengths.

I think this game is all about extreme's and its disgustingly brutal and not for the faint of heart. One extreme will be countered by a different extreme. Heavily base your group on armor for defenses and get crushed by groups that focus on magic. I think a main reason on why you don't see a lot of cross group buffs in this game is to not steal from the importance of banners. A guild could field 3 different banners built to a purpose.

So if we are talking about max value's of whatever I think banners should also be taken into consideration as far as balance is concerned.

Also note when talking about max value's or whatever this game was based on also having some intense defensive morale cycle's which got taken away at one point.

Defensive morale cycle's were removed after patch 1.3 but the offensive capabilities where left intact. I suspect the proc meta stuff was designed to pierce through those defensive morale cycle's to sneak a kill. Proc stuff only cares about resistances. The defensive morale cycle's dramatically boosted resistances. Just stuff to think on. Banners also boosted resistances...
Off topic of the original purpose and direction of the thread, posting on an un-related and unwarranted tangent which does not contribute positively to the discussion of deciding upon a frame work to take forward.

Furthermore - 6. No arguments to item procs or abilities.

Class balance (abilities, tactics, morales) both supersedes and ignores the effect of all items. Any unusual effect (proc, ability) granted by an item MUST NOT be a prerequisite for a class's viability. Do not appeal to an item proc or item ability when discussing the balance of any class.
- Warned
- Gerv

Dabbart
Posts: 2248

Re: State stabilization.

Post#185 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:55 pm

Spoiler:
TenTonHammer wrote:
Dabbart wrote:
Spoiler:
TenTonHammer wrote: Once again explain to me by why core class balance should be dictated by gear sets?

At its core; gear, procs, set bonuses etc should not be what dictates class balance nor should the be band aids that suddenly cover up core class flaws/inferiorities

Also with talis and potions you can already reach soft cap on your main stat, hell with ferocious assault on my mara i can reach 1050 str
Good for you and your mara. Ofc, Ferocious assault doesn't stack with Chosen Auras or Pots, so meh. But if you actually want to pay attention to my point, What is your WS? GIve yourself another 2 gear lvls(IE conq/inv) and what will your stats look like? Before any procs, % increases, or other set bonus'. Just your base stats. How much more armor pen/survivability will you gain from the next 2 gear progressions? Now, imagine that you are NOT a dedicated DPS, you are infact a BO. A couple more gear progressions, all of a sudden you can cap out a few stats, and start to get REALLY dangerous, while actually being partly tanky... Now think of AM/Sham. How are their new class mechanics going to function in RR70gear? Will they still be "balanced" comparatively to how they are now? Who knows! I don't think so however. Anyone who thinks anni v anni works the same as Warlord v Warlord is forgetting Live... And if they do function the same, then why the feck even bother to grind up said gear?

Class Balance will be GREATLY affected by gear, because that is where 80% of our stat benefits come from... Your opinion of gear is just plain weird. So, all class balance(or the great majority of it) should be almost entirely irrelevant of gear? How the hell do you propose that? Take out all gear stat progression and add in an auto stat progression based on RR? The arguement on what Procs or set bonus' is irrelevant, since WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE. Do you know for a fact what the 5p Inv bonus will be? Cause I don't. I don't happen to believe that the devs will just roll out oldschool gear set bonus' after all of this balancing talk...

But AGAIN TENTONHAMMER you basically just start the argument you want to have. My point stands, from what Lvl should Balance be set towards? if you can't handle discussing it from a gear perspective then fine, from a RR perspective. Should we balance END GAME and everything before it based upon RR40 and below? Cause that is the currently Gear lvl we are at, and what we are attempting to balance from atm. That is my point. But feel free to keep pushing for some ridiculously complicated balancing system where gear has no impact on class balance... And then you can laugh as no one bothers to grind up gear, cause why? It has no impact on class balance..

TLDR: My points go entirely side tracked.
Why do I needed to worry about armor pen when I had cuttig claw and linearly scaling piercing bite?


You balance classes once they hit end game at level 40 and not before

So what is the argument were going to use in the future "oh you don't need to buff x class, their compleatly viable if you have 5 peice sov" then you create situations of classes needing mandatory gear items to be competitive

If with later gear sets cause a class that is precived to be balanced to become op then that is not the classes fault but rather the effects of a poorly designed power creep set, why would you nerf a class becuase a set bonus/procs makes them too strong?

"Ermagad 5 peice sov Shammy is 2op5me lets nerf the whole class instead of bringing the set back in line"

?? Like how does that sound reasonable to you

Now you say they need to take a place and balance from it yet even you don't know what the at point is


My argument is against az's threat to shut down the balance fourm, and it is that gear should not have any real consideration in balance disscussions which is what the balance fourms have done so far arguments should not be made like: "it is not an issue that Bg does not have a core morale pump becuse they have access to X set/shield that lets them build morale on block"

Balance should be looked at from their core class prespective once they have reached 40


Now the other poster talked about whether engie and other pRDPS will need armor pen abilites with the increased scaling of armor, when the devs for some reason, instead of choosing the 1.40 armor system which had t4 invader to sov instead of was it will be now which is ruin to sov basically, was kind of a promise to rein the rampant armor scaling additionally their was talk of a "t5" zone using re proposed assets where high geared players would go to pvp


But now you can see the problem tha az is trying to deal with of having soo manny sets in 1 tier that their is a huge gap in performance between the "highest and lowest" sets

Why do you keep going back to Sov gear? I never said anything about balancing towards Sov. I said Warlord in my preference but most likely Conq(which is the Next **** Set), and that you should balance upwards and DOWNWARDS from there. At means Anni/merc/Ruin would need to be adjusted along with every other set of gear...

No, I do not believe you balance the game from a lvl 40 RR 0 perspective (and again you create a random argument about balancing them before rank 40) which is what Ruin is, and diff between ruin and anni is negligable. I get it, I don't want the balance forums shut down either. But I would want to see classes performing in full warlord being on scale with anni even less. Balancing around set's that don't even have a proc, in a Tier where not every class even has a Defensive set wont accomplish what the OP intends imo.

Why would you "balance" classes and group fights based upon anything less than RR50? The basic entry level to the tier should NOT be where you balance from. That argument is just silly. lvl 15s(previouls 11s) didn't get weakened down to the competitive lvl of a rank 1. The lowbies got a boost. Let's not set the line at the lowest possible setting. let's find a place where classes function "equally well". And this would mean that the playerbase might need access to class changes(am/sham ex, WP/DoK, knight/chosen etc) otherwise, everyone is just pissin in the dark as to what is actually "balanced"..
Azarael wrote: It's only a nerf if you're bad.

(see, I can shitpost too!)
Secrets wrote: Kindly adjust your attitude to actually help the community and do not impose your will on it. You aren't as powerful as you think.

User avatar
Gerv
Banned
Posts: 811

Re: State stabilization.

Post#186 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:07 am

@Dabbart - Your point that you don't believe the state of stabilization/balance should be from Annihilator and rather from another gear point is made, period. Further points regarding this will not be tolerated.

@Tenton - Your point about the irrelevance of gear and future stats you can achieve is made and noted. Further points regarding this will not be tolerated.
Sia - DoK - Lords
Boyd - WP - O.S.

User avatar
Tesq
Posts: 5704

Re: State stabilization.

Post#187 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:55 pm

Spoiler:
if ppl really think there is a need for vertical progression this is alredy in game, tough i am against very creepy progression, what ppl want is both a form of horizontal progression at the gear cap which is sov and then better balanced form of gear progression till sov.

This just mean rebalance stats value over the sets and fix armor/resistences debuff, not so very hard (as go deep in the game foundamental) as to put an invisble system or total rewamp the gear system.
Progressiom mean progression not that the progression must be really creepy....you decide how much progression must be between sets. Is not a divine law that between anni and sov there must be 300 stats difference.....
The work that was done with t3 sets and then with t4 ones could definetly be re-used even for anni-sov progression.
Stats as crit which esponentialy became better can have a reduced curve of progression on each different sets (you decide which stats get the higher contribution not us, for exemple 5-6-7% instead 5% 10%-15%...or stats as crit reduction/initiative can have a higer contribution so that the difference between old set and new is a little 1%)
Also regarding wounds escalation, a simple wounds rebalance would solve the issue and would also solve the m2 ista kill thing.

on top of horizontal progression there can be a very hard and very very slow vertical progression which also allow appereance change. And it's very very low as said and/or limited to boost underperforming aspect of the class only or just give you more woudns... you got the idea. So the same aim can be reach also by just rebalance sets stats if you decide then stop at sov and warpforge and doomflayer became only alternative set (well that would be pretty cool)(idk why you decided to drop the idea of 3 set; yes is time consuming but it's pretty cool and is the horizontal progression the game and classes need the most, you should enforce more the 3 set progression set; 1 pve, 1 rvr, 1 sc)
You have been previously moderated for discussing progression and explicitly stated not to discuss it in this topic further.
- Warned, Gerv
Image

ToXoS
Posts: 671

Re: State stabilization.

Post#188 » Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:52 pm

Spoiler:
If crit % cap was added, what would be the cap?
I'm not against it, only if DPS classes would have a greater cap than other classes.
I was thinking of 25 % crit as a cap for these classes.
For other classes, maybe something like 15% crit bonus as a cap would be enough.
Or maybe you were thinking of a harder nerf ?

Anyway, I think this system would attract more people to play MDPS like Mara, Slayer or Choppa, instead of going loldps 2H tanks.
Issues with the post:
Not in-line with the rules of balance forum as stated here viewtopic.php?f=96&t=11105 under the section Top Responders.
- Further more the post does not continue the discussion regarding which frame-work should be accepted, it continues the subject of specifics which has been previously, asked, by moderators, not to be discussed yet.

- Warned for posting off original topic, regarding an aspect previously heavily moderated and asked not to be discussed.
- Gerv

Ads
Penril
Posts: 4441

Re: State stabilization.

Post#189 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:13 pm

Time to lock (should have locked it yesterday :P )

User avatar
Azarael
Posts: 5332

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#190 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:56 pm

I've drawn my conclusions from this topic and what's to follow will not be good.

This entire topic hits at one of the cornerstones of MMORPG games: progression and gear, and not depth of gameplay and balance, drive these games. Knocking out that cornerstone will bring the whole structure crashing down.

It is clear to me that some form of progression is required to keep the game moving, as the core gameplay does not contain enough depth on its own. The type of player who enjoys this kind of game feeds on the feel of new gear and power advantage, or they wouldn't be playing this type of game in the first place. Both models of progression advanced so far run counter to the ideals of balance:
  • Vertical progression transforms the game state from set to set and can cause parameters to shift to extreme levels, which inevitably results in some specs and even entire concepts becoming unviable.
  • Horizontal progression increases the number of variables in the game and thus the difficulty of the balance exercise, and is also very difficult to implement in a meaningful manner without resulting in the development of a secondary gear meta based around rock/paper/scissors. It also lacks the "raw power increase" appeal of vertical progression.
It has also been noted that dramatically shifting balance when new content is released acts as a motivator by keeping the game fresh.

In addressing my OP, some have suggested that the state of the game will not shift dramatically between Annihilator and Sovereign on the basis of the stat increases. While this may be true, it begs an obvious reply:

If the state will not shift dramatically between Annihilator and Sovereign, and there WILL be an end to progression (at Sovereign level), then this means that there will come a time when vertical progression cannot drive the game. Knowing that this is inevitable, why should we rely on such vertical progression at all?

The response is obvious. There is no intention to stop the progression cycle and thus the disruption of the balance. When Sovereign is reached, new progression will be introduced, most likely in the form of the overpowered LotD content from live, and more progression beyond that, because this is the only way to hold player interest. It's the same flaw in mentality that has killed many MMORPGs - using a model that relies upon progression and generation of content with low replayability and depth to hold interest.

Unfortunately, I do not feel as if we have any choice but to follow the same path, and thus I judge attempting to balance this project pointless. I am not willing to expend effort into supporting a balance process that will be deliberately disrupted, and in fact must be, in order for the game to hold its players.

In order to allow replies to my post, I will unlock the topic. However, as it stands, I lean heavily towards the cessation of balance efforts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests