Recent Topics

Ads

Overarching balance changes

Let's talk about... everything else

Poll: Which game mechanic needs to be changed the most?

Guard
25
9%
Cleanse
65
23%
Buff/Debuff stacking
10
4%
Critical damage
33
12%
%Damage mitigation abilities (Detaunt/Challenge/ID/Bellow etc...)
12
4%
Softcaps
10
4%
Morales
13
5%
Group Heal
24
9%
Armor/Resistance stacking and penetration
28
10%
Crowd Control and immunities
58
21%
Total votes: 278

User avatar
peterthepan3
Posts: 6509

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#71 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:18 am

Vigfuss wrote:
Eathisword wrote: Maybe a way to go about it would be to make core dots Damaging and tactic/spec dot kept cleansable. Just an idea.
That might be taking things too far, BW Sorc rotations need to be cleansable. And it would create a bunch of new problems I think.
One thing this server needs to do differently than live is balance such things (dots being cleansable/uncleansable) as per each individual class, instead of blanket changes. If cleanse is going to be improved, then some classes will absolutely need to have their dots uncleansable to counter this.

btw I agree with all of your other points as usual, mr vig.
Image

Ads
User avatar
Jaycub
Posts: 3130

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#72 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:21 am

bctakhy wrote:
Sure... give WP Khaine´s Withdrawal but give DoK free AoE detaunt on off hand like WP gets on 2h and wounds buff :D
Also will be fun see chopas with untouchable and maras with spameable pounce...
AH! and dont forgot to give chosen 15% extra heal and 10% crit to all group ;)
And my fauvorite for last... parry buff for WEs :roll:
Want more?
Pack it up order, how can you ever recover from this?

I'm a #DestroDog now!
<Lords of the Locker Room> <Old School>

salaino
Posts: 14

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#73 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:22 am

TenTonHammer wrote:

And how exactly would you go about making this happen? sounds like it would require new gui options and stuff?

futhermore i feels like it would be a lot easier and less clunky to throw out a gclense and remove a sorc rotation from your grp mate rather than look through the debuffs and pick and choose the one you want to remove
If it's an aliment use ailment cleanse, curse use curse cleanse, hex use hex cleanse. Pretty sure all classes stick to giving just one of the three. (like I said before, not too sure how possible this even is until they can edit the client stuff) This way dps can still bury abilities. Aoe cleanse is stupid strong, and I feel like having it in the game breaks some classes.

analoghermit
Posts: 20

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#74 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:25 am

From a long timer healer's perspective ...
I think the current system is fine, assuming there aren't too many individual trash debuffs to bury the meaningful ones below.
Thing is, if you had the choice between a dispel of Boiling Blood, Incinerate and Flaming Arrow, which one would you pick?
Yeah. Right.
So, the current system "rewards" not just spamming a spell as the rpds (the number of times I've cleansed a BB before an Incinerate is staggering), it also allows for coordination ("Other team has a BW, someone stand on by to cleanse the Incinerate so I can cleanse the BB").

The problem is just when the trash debuffs get so out of hand you need an entire party of healers to cleanse.

Annaise16
Posts: 341

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#75 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:37 am

Vigfuss wrote:
Jaycub wrote:
TenTonHammer wrote:no mention of the disparity in bonuses between DW and 2H?
Didn't think it was really worth mentioning, it's been discussed a lot as well. And the proposed fix was shotdown by a certain destro guild that thought it would favor order too much :^)

Changing 10% block strikethrough to parry strikethrough would hardly be game changing either. But at the same time kind of cheesy as they would just both cancel each other out.
Like them or hate them they were a strong voice and helped keep things sensible on the forums. (If you could get past the drama.) Now the discussion is heavily slanted towards warband gameplay, and people talking about balance at the group level are totally ignored.

They never argued for balance. They only ever argued in their own self-interest. A lot of their arguments were simply con jobs on people who didn't know enough about the game to argue against them. For example, a 10% parry strikethrough for 2H is not biased towards Order. Rather, the absence of the 10% Parry strikethrough is biased towards destro. It gives marauders and and dps doks an extra 10% Parry compared to WL and dps WP, while the WL and dps WP get an extra 10% block strikethrough. Who do you think is getting the better deal there?

The 2H bonus should revert to 10% Parry strikethrough. It will make it clear that 2H is the offensive weapon choice, while dual-wield and s/b become clear defensive choices.

There should be a minimum Parry chance of 2.5%. So the change wouldn't affect casters who have not stacked parry because 2.5% is already their parry chance against melee.

The change would provide balance when a 2H is fighting dual-wield because the parry strikethrough of the 2H would negate the Parry bonus of dual wield. And for those who argue against this, isn't the point of a proposed balance change is that the change should provide balance where it doesn't currently exist?

The change would help balance out the discrepancy between 2H and dual-wield builds for slayer and choppa, which currently heavily favour dual-wield, partly because the current strikethrough bonus is largely useless when compared to the parry bonus from dual-wield.

2H will still provide extra chance to hit against s/b tanks, but not as much as previously.

User avatar
Vigfuss
Posts: 383

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#76 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:43 am

peterthepan3 wrote: One thing this server needs to do differently than live is balance such things (dots being cleansable/uncleansable) as per each individual class, instead of blanket changes. If cleanse is going to be improved, then some classes will absolutely need to have their dots uncleansable to counter this.

btw I agree with all of your other points as usual, mr vig.
[/quote]

Building on what i suggested on the previous page, I wonder if a change like that would help your magus out a bit as well. Most healers are trying to get rid of things like Shatter limbs, HDbuff, snares, and some of the more potent stat debuffs. There's a good chance they would choose not to cleanse your Magus DoTs, even if in some situations they should.

Most of this idea comes from DAoC where a healer has more than one type of cleanse. For example you can use a cleanse that specifically removes a mezz from a player.
Fusscle of Critical Acclaim

User avatar
Vigfuss
Posts: 383

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#77 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:48 am

Annaise16 wrote: They never argued for balance. They only ever argued in their own self-interest. A lot of their arguments were simply con jobs on people who didn't know enough about the game to argue against them. For example, a 10% parry strikethrough for 2H is not biased towards Order. Rather, the absence of the 10% Parry strikethrough is biased towards destro. It gives marauders and and dps doks an extra 10% Parry compared to WL and dps WP, while the WL and dps WP get an extra 10% block strikethrough. Who do you think is getting the better deal there?

The 2H bonus should revert to 10% Parry strikethrough. It will make it clear that 2H is the offensive weapon choice, while dual-wield and s/b become clear defensive choices.

There should be a minimum Parry chance of 2.5%. So the change wouldn't affect casters who have not stacked parry because 2.5% is already their parry chance against melee.

The change would provide balance when a 2H is fighting dual-wield because the parry strikethrough of the 2H would negate the Parry bonus of dual wield. And for those who argue against this, isn't the point of a proposed balance change is that the change should provide balance where it doesn't currently exist?

The change would help balance out the discrepancy between 2H and dual-wield builds for slayer and choppa, which currently heavily favour dual-wield, partly because the current strikethrough bonus is largely useless when compared to the parry bonus from dual-wield.

2H will still provide extra chance to hit against s/b tanks, but not as much as previously.
I think that's a matter of subjective opinion, but they did prove what they said in game. The two realms are relatively well balanced as it is, and blanket changing something that benefits one side over the other, as you also pointed out, will not be a good decision IMO.
Fusscle of Critical Acclaim

Annaise16
Posts: 341

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#78 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:04 am

Vigfuss wrote:
Annaise16 wrote: They never argued for balance. They only ever argued in their own self-interest. A lot of their arguments were simply con jobs on people who didn't know enough about the game to argue against them. For example, a 10% parry strikethrough for 2H is not biased towards Order. Rather, the absence of the 10% Parry strikethrough is biased towards destro. It gives marauders and and dps doks an extra 10% Parry compared to WL and dps WP, while the WL and dps WP get an extra 10% block strikethrough. Who do you think is getting the better deal there?

The 2H bonus should revert to 10% Parry strikethrough. It will make it clear that 2H is the offensive weapon choice, while dual-wield and s/b become clear defensive choices.

There should be a minimum Parry chance of 2.5%. So the change wouldn't affect casters who have not stacked parry because 2.5% is already their parry chance against melee.

The change would provide balance when a 2H is fighting dual-wield because the parry strikethrough of the 2H would negate the Parry bonus of dual wield. And for those who argue against this, isn't the point of a proposed balance change is that the change should provide balance where it doesn't currently exist?

The change would help balance out the discrepancy between 2H and dual-wield builds for slayer and choppa, which currently heavily favour dual-wield, partly because the current strikethrough bonus is largely useless when compared to the parry bonus from dual-wield.

2H will still provide extra chance to hit against s/b tanks, but not as much as previously.
I think that's a matter of subjective opinion, but they did prove what they said in game. The two realms are relatively well balanced as it is, and blanket changing something that benefits one side over the other, as you also pointed out, will not be a good decision IMO.

They argued long and hard that RP could be tankier and harder to kill than the WP. And yet I just watched their 6v6 against CCM, and Gankbus clearly targeted the RP first and killed him in under 3 seconds in both fights. If they believed what they said and weren't just trying to con us, why didn't they target the WP first? Why did they find it so easy to kill the incredibly "tanky" RP?

PS. And it isn't subjective unless you are arguing that a 10% block strikethrough is as good as a 10% parry bonus. Is that what you believe?

Ads
User avatar
Vigfuss
Posts: 383

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#79 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:27 am

Annaise16 wrote: They argued long and hard that RP could be tankier and harder to kill than the WP. And yet I just watched their 6v6 against CCM, and Gankbus clearly targeted the RP first and killed him in under 3 seconds in both fights. If they believed what they said and weren't just trying to con us, why didn't they target the WP first? Why did they find it so easy to kill the incredibly "tanky" RP?

PS. And it isn't subjective unless you are arguing that a 10% block strikethrough is as good as a 10% parry bonus. Is that what you believe?
They played Order at least as much as Destro, probably more actually, so i don't think they're biased in that sense.

As far as balance between 10% parry and 10% strikethrough, if you only compare that by itself of course they're not balanced but that's not how WAR is balanced. The realms are quite well balanced (not mirrored) and both SM and WL have a place in the Order FOTM 6 man. Buffing the FOTM is usually not a good idea.

I'm not saying they're always right, no one is. All I said was, love them or hate them, their input was valuable. The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them wrong.
Fusscle of Critical Acclaim

Annaise16
Posts: 341

Re: Overarching balance changes

Post#80 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:33 am

Vigfuss wrote:
Annaise16 wrote: They argued long and hard that RP could be tankier and harder to kill than the WP. And yet I just watched their 6v6 against CCM, and Gankbus clearly targeted the RP first and killed him in under 3 seconds in both fights. If they believed what they said and weren't just trying to con us, why didn't they target the WP first? Why did they find it so easy to kill the incredibly "tanky" RP?

PS. And it isn't subjective unless you are arguing that a 10% block strikethrough is as good as a 10% parry bonus. Is that what you believe?
They played Order at least as much as Destro, probably more actually, so i don't think they're biased in that sense.

As far as balance between 10% parry and 10% strikethrough, if you only compare that by itself of course they're not balanced but that's not how WAR is balanced. The realms are quite well balanced (not mirrored) and both SM and WL have a place in the Order FOTM 6 man. Buffing the FOTM is usually not a good idea.

I'm not saying they're always right, no one is. All I said was, love them or hate them, their input was valuable. The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them wrong.

I'm pretty sure that War was balanced with the 10% parry versus 10% parry strikethrough at launch. I think the devs changed it to block strikethrough in 2009. The complaints at the time were about 2H dps tanks being too effective and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason for any change. Maybe someone who was playing at the time has better recall of this.

There were also a lot of complaints about Ravage at the time and it was also apparently nerfed.

PS. My reason for viewing them as conmen was not because I disliked them. I had never encountered them until viewing their posts. Instead, I came to dislike them simply because many of their posts are con jobs, and I don't like con artists.
Last edited by Annaise16 on Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests