The Plight of the Melders



  • edited February 2017
    I think the problem with melds is that they are both a passive offense and defense. Would removing the offense part and increasing the defense some reduce the fortresss meta some? Note that there is plenty of room for meld defensive passives that don't overlap with bards. 

    editted to replace minstrels with bards. No clue where my head was at
  • Breandryn said:
    What if the conflict mechanics themselves were also adjusted? Like change domoth stage 2 to a rotating spawn ala KOTH hills or have multiple spawns that require secondary teams to help clear? That would help undercut the single room necessity and introduce some more tactical options.
    I like the idea of moving the domoth item throughout stage 2. Usually one domothing team wipes out the other and maintains control over the whole bubble but I have seen domoths that were totally fortressed where both sides were on the bubble but it didn't matter because they didn't have the numbers to make it to the domoth item. A rotation would give a window of opportunity for a contesting team to take advantage of and depending on the bubble might require reworking the meld to reach.

  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    I don't think that would help fortressing, it would just make the item swap from fortress to fortress periodically.  
  • A bit of a tangent, but if we're worried about the fortress swap, maybe just have the item swap aetherbubbles instead. That'd be totally stressful and the artied would still be at a huge advantage, but the portal is still there at the very least.

  • edited February 2017
    Niche band aid solution, IMO. If melds are the problem, change melds not domoths. Starting to sound like "fearaura OP, nerf wolf totem," again.

    You can come up with 1000 ways to nerf melds to be less effective at what they do, but so long as they establish area control, they will continue to contribute to the the fortress meta everyone hates.

    Listen, what is not a good direction is to make melds still necessary, still influential, but less enjoyable for PKers. I, personally, don't like changing the effects to just being team buffs because, in the long run, that'll just suck for melders. So long as they are necessary, PKers will pick it up because they want to win. However, PKers also want kills and glory, they want to be on deathsight and they want to feel engaged. Staff spam while you buff your allies isn't going to draw PKers because it's not fun, it'll draw them because it's necessary. That is not the right direction, if you ask me. Then everyone will be happy but your artied meld slave that paid to be your mobile buff factory and tank. 

    People will still play, because there is a niche playerbase that likes to be buff factories, but it's small and they usually aren't the hardcore PKers with artie piles aka not optimal survivalists. My point is if the meld is necessary, a PKer will pick it up if solely for that reason, even if they hate life while doing it. I played melder because I blow people the f*** up, not because I liked melding. 
    Known Aliases: Celina/Cyndarin/Fire Jesus/The Night/That Bitch who griefed us
  • Fyler said:
    However, PKers also want kills and glory, they want to be on deathsight and they want to feel engaged.
    Tangent, but clearly we should add assist tracking. >_>
  • Okay, I've finally taken the time to catch up on this thread.

    I'm not the best melder in the room, but there's one thing I want to add to make clear. I supported the couple of meld nerf reports because I felt they were justified for the effects that melds bring, not in lieu of upcoming buffs to meld defenses.

    Melders have always stayed as safe as they can (be it one room away, or flying, or in trees) in combat, even before the meld-drops-when-dead change, and even before the meld-weaker-than-out-of-room change. This is because they had the same effects in that safer distance, as they had when in reach of danger. Those two reports were made because of that meta - if a melder was going to stay away and safe, their effects should not be so strong. Putting themselves at much bigger risk by staying within reach will justify their effects becoming stronger - but they weren't doing so. In which case, there's no reason for melds to be so strong, so influential. A scaling effectiveness of their melds, congruent to how much danger they were in, therefore makes the most sense.

    It just so happened that the scale is not a scale, but a binary. You're either in the dangerous room, and able to get killed, or you're one room away, and the effectiveness of your meld needs to drop. This has to do with limitations of text based room combat, and can't be helped. I felt that the danger faced by melders when they were in the dangerous room, is justified by the effects that they bring.

    This is aimed squarely at reducing the fortress meta. A team storming an established meld gains a huge advantage because the defending melder needs to be in the room to maintain their fortress advantage. The charging melder can die, and the charging team doesn't lose THAT much - as long as they can take down the defending melder. It tips the scale toward the rushing team, and away from the defending team. A defending melder that stays safer, contributes less to the fortress.

    Buffing a melder so they become survivable in room, therefore would neccesitate a further drop in their effectiveness in the room, on top of the two reports that are already in. Otherwise, it would be buffing the fortress meta. The effectiveness of everything needs to drop for a defensive buff, including when they are outside of the room as well.

    Unless we are entirely reworking melds, of course.

Sign In or Register to comment.