Combat Overhaul

1235712

Comments

  • Well, economic issues entirely aside, the problem about Artifacts being a part of the power creep is a good point. Even if the admin were to keep the current model of requiring a certain amount of artifacts to be viable in combat, one thing probably must change: the consistent shifting of certain mechanical advantages into more and more artifacts. Having a huge list of shiny artifacts mean a higher chance of people wanting one of the things on that list, which leads to more income. Which is a good thing, because we want this business to flourish so it can continue to bring us entertainment. But the huge list on its own is staggering for new players to wrap their minds around, and can frankly speaking, be quite a put-off.

    I started playing IRE games long before dingbats came into the picture, and as a newbie, I was then already almost overwhelmed by the sheer amount of artifacts, and I distinctly remember going "OMG, how am I supposed to learn all these! There are so many they are being split into four different helpfiles! (Weapons, Combat, Trade, Misc)" And now, the newbies of today have to deal with all those (which are staggeringly huge lists on their own) as well as an additional four lists of dingbat artifacts plus curios (Imperian has pages of the atlas or something, Aetolia has some kind of chest puzzle somethings).

    While deleting artifacts en masse to make them more manageable, or stopping the introduction of new promotional items (like curios) are pretty much impossible, the very least that can be done is to strongly reconsider how artifacts will and shall interact with the new combat system. Especially so when we have the chance to do so now. While new promotional items are being added, which is well and good, we should at the very least dictate a much stricter influence combat artifacts have on the new system.

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Pretty sure that is already addressed with "buff levels" and a cap thereon; after a certain number of skills and artifacts there would be no additional benefit from acquiring more (cutting down on power creep and allowing individuals to choose more rp appropriate equipment choices- you know, instead of wearing five different sets of footwear all at once).
    image
  • UshaaraUshaara Schrödinger's Traitor
    They may already have been considered and discarded, but as a few suggestions for other changes that I think would be beneficial as part of this overhaul - falling under the 'lower bar for entry' heading I would have...

    Problem: Resilience
    A 1715 lesson requirement that provides no new skills, only poison shrugging and physical DMP is too expensive. Without the increased poison shrugging, your curing can be locked up far too easily by warriors and monks, or even beast spit chansu + anorexia for softer or aeon locks.

    Solution 1: Incorporate the effects of the Resilience skill into the Combat skill.
    Solution 2: Change Resilience into a 'Mini-skill,' maybe 600 lessons to master.
    Solution 3: Remove Resilience outright. Damage formulas will be under review, so the loss of the DMP is not major. Flat rate of poison shrugging could become standard for all, option of making it a racial perk/malus.

    Problem: Illusion Detection

    Currently tied in with the Arts skill, so another 1715 lesson requirement for the sole combat investments of increased illusion protection and the ability to CRITIQUE. I think systems are getting better at illusion protection, and there's the argument of whether mages/bards should need them anyway, so whether illusions are to remain after this overhaul might be up in the air already, but if they are to stay I would suggest...

    Solution 1: Incorporate illusion detection into Discernment.
    Solution 2: Move the ability to CRITIQUE illusions into Discipline (inner focus needed to pierce the illusion), since Discipline has the more useful skills for those inclined to combat.

    Problem: Focus Body
    FOCUS BODY cure time ranges from ~4s (?) at Inept to ~1s at Transcendent. That is, the paralysis affliction is as good as a death sentence for those who don't transcend it. Unsure if focus mind times are similarly dependent on discipline skill, but similar though lesser issue if they are.

    Solution: Just standardize the cure times for everyone, can make faster/slower focusing an optional racial perk/malus.

    Problem: Buffs being dependent on other 'skillpool' skills.
    Talking about things like Dramatics boosting Music damage/song lengths here, being both of the Performance skill pool. May not be huge problem, but if an AB says it gives 20 dmp, and you only get the full 20 dmp if you've also transcended X, it's annoying and an increased cost.

    Solution: Maximum buffs/damage/etc. to depend only on the primary skill in which the ability is learned.

    Outcome of these changes? Reduced lesson cost. New players have all the combat related abilities/perks they need sooner. Able to purchase artifacts sooner.
  • Sorry if this was answered earlier, but will this include a simplification of knight combat mechanics?
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Yes.  Drastically so.
    image
  • Some thoughts to throw in real fast on Ushaara.

    I agree skill requirements is a huge issue but I wanted to focus on a couple things.

    Ilusions:  Remove them as a combat mechanic during the overhaul, we do not want to have to balance around this if we can avoid it.  Removing them would also allow systems based on affmessages, and potentially allow us to send affliction notices (potentially what level you are at) in GMCP.  This would be an amazing bit of progress for curing in Lusty.  

    Resilience: This skill should disappear, we have so many already.  Make shrugging something you get automatically, or, make it so poisons have the same chance to inherently fail and skills that modify this would simply lower the natural fail instead. Either or, but we have alot of skills and most of them are single target purpose.

    With illusions (for combat) removed we dont need to be able to see through illusions, and thus arts is no longer needed for that!  Removing illusions for combat could be as simple as making them require eq/bal and cost 4s eq or such, so you wouldn't use them in combat, you could remove programmed during such as well.

    Afflictions:  I think we can remove alot of them by simply combining them, for instance:  there are 7 possible numbs, 4 arterys, 4 lacerations, etc.  Instead of tracking each one, make them affs that can increase .... you are suffering from 3 numbed areas.   This allows you to track amounts and in things like numbs cure them automatically instead of having to use healing to remove just the one aff. ALOT of afflictions are like that in that we have multiples of them available, we could tone things down alot changing those.  Which was why I was wondering if we prefer overhaul or changing old stuff. Would take less time to tone down, but an overhaul could pay off too.
  • Xenthos said:
    Yes.  Drastically so.
    Not necessarily! You could easily have affliction categories for wounding on each limb (head, chest, gut, 2 arms, 2 legs) blunt, cutting, piercing, and bleeding. And buff categories, of which we have already confirmed there will be ones for armour, weapons and shields. Possibly even more than one for each. And other buffs as well. Plus afflictions for tertiary skillsets. And skills that deliver more than one type of condition, have different maxes or minimums, skills that combine in unusual ways, skills that give afflictions in one category but require afflictions from another to unlock them, all sorts of opportunities to make things complicated.

    We won't see until some sample shells are done and some sample skillsets put out for consideration.
  • I am assuming that because of the shell system they will take alot of player input to help with skill balancing and designy stuff.  

    @Estarra is it possible we could have scaling afflictions/damage.  Sort of like the warrior report, but if afflictions will be in tiers, make it so having 3 of something does not end up insta ganking with haegl + toad or something? 

    I was hesitant about the idea but I think the resulting potential boom in system making because of the simplicity, and new waves of offense could be awesome!

    <3 the idea, and wish I had been at the con!

  • Malarious said:
    I am assuming that because of the shell system they will take alot of player input to help with skill balancing and designy stuff.  

    @Estarra is it possible we could have scaling afflictions/damage.  Sort of like the warrior report, but if afflictions will be in tiers, make it so having 3 of something does not end up insta ganking with haegl + toad or something? 

    I was hesitant about the idea but I think the resulting potential boom in system making because of the simplicity, and new waves of offense could be awesome!

    <3 the idea, and wish I had been at the con!
    Expand a bit on "scaling afflictions/damage"? How/what would scale? Would you get less damage if you have more afflictions, or a higher chance to deal afflictions the more damage you do, or what? I'm sure it's perfectly understandable with an example, but just "scaling afflictions/damage" doesn't say anything at all to me.
    image
  • Most combat in Lusternia has devolved into group affairs, so having 2 runists and a wiccan/guardian means you get insta'd. 

    I mean they scale themselves similar to how warriors. 

    If 2 people are attacking the same target he starts taking 60 or 70% of the normal damage AND affliction levels from each one. Each person after that drops everyones rates further. So yes 5 people can jump you, but they are each looking at doing say 30% of their normal affliction and damage output.

    The system doesnt work if you HAVE an affliction or dont, because you cant have half a severed artery, but if afflictions are intended to build and are based on that concept then you can reduce the amount being dealt.  We did it with warriors but no other system can use it right now really.

    Does that make sense?
  • Ah, makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification!
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Iytha said:
    Xenthos said:
    Yes.  Drastically so.
    Not necessarily! You could easily have affliction categories for wounding on each limb (head, chest, gut, 2 arms, 2 legs) blunt, cutting, piercing, and bleeding. And buff categories, of which we have already confirmed there will be ones for armour, weapons and shields. Possibly even more than one for each. And other buffs as well. Plus afflictions for tertiary skillsets. And skills that deliver more than one type of condition, have different maxes or minimums, skills that combine in unusual ways, skills that give afflictions in one category but require afflictions from another to unlock them, all sorts of opportunities to make things complicated.

    We won't see until some sample shells are done and some sample skillsets put out for consideration.
    Uh.  You may not have seen it, but part of the warrior change "suggestion" is to reduce warriors to having just 4 attacks (instead of the oodles of attacks we have now).  A swing for cutting, a jab for cutting, a swing for blunt and a jab for blunt.  Also, discussion of removing the miss rate.

    That's a lot of simplification right there, so, yeah.  Obviously warriors would still be attacking body parts and it would thus be more complex than others in that sense, just much less so than now.
    image
  • Nothing wrong with a bit of low-level derailing so long as it remains (mostly) on subject and pertinent points get raised/discussed.

    I really like this idea. I think it's long, long overdue and will cause nothing but a much needed bit of attention for the combat aspects of the game that many find either too difficult or too overwhelming.
  • In case people decide not to go a major epic overhaul, I will work on an overhaul using current stuff (cause I like to design anyway).

    Once we see what the intent is like, we can even propose what things might look like.

    @Enyalida:  Hey, does this means druids might move away from sap?
  • I'm expecting awesome things from you, man.

    Make combat better, regardless.
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    PLEASE. It also means that the woodchemancer group might be fixed, and dreamweaving might not consist of 70%  silly stuff, and so on. 
  • NeosNeos The Subtle Griefer
    Enyalida said:
    the woodchemancer group might be fixed
    Now you're just talking crazy.
    Love gaming? Love gaming stuff? Sign up for Lootcrate and get awesome gaming items. Accompanying video.

     Signature!


    Celina said:
    You can't really same the same, can you?
    Zvoltz said:
    "The Panthron"
  • I love this idea, and I'm so glad that it's being considered. Even if the costs are high upfront, if you guys do this properly and with forward-thinking, there's no good reason this wouldn't pay off for years to come.

    I implore you, though, in revisiting the archetypes, to come up with design philosophies that govern the bounds the skillsets should be balanced against. That's not to say introduce rock-paper-scissors scenarios, but to say that archetype X should have a way to do Y for a cost that similar to each guild within X. 

    If  you establish clear rules that govern the direction of design, then every idea can be evaluated by those rules and assessed on whether or not it's balanced. I really believe the more hypothetical situations you can eliminate, the better. Develop a way to be able to talk and discuss the skillsets in relation to one another.

    If you all are looking for volunteers, this is something I'd enjoy doing. I love balancing and designing game systems.
  • Thanks to the several of you who for offered to help with design! Right now, however, we're going to be doing the first phase in-house. There's always the issue of too many cooks! However, once we get the first phase out to be tested, we'll be definitely looking for feedback so stay tuned!

    (BTW, if you ever become an admin volunteer, that's who we usually use for the first round of feedback so if you've ever been on the fence for volunteering....)
    image
    image
  • The question is what do the volunteers do though!

    I am not a master of descriptions (and those room designers have been amazing) but I am a mean coder. 
  • edited August 2013
    Shells!

    I really want to urge you to go the route of shells over the test server. I really hope all the design staff are doing the same.

    Add shells and code them in such a way that they can later be incorporated into quests. This is one of the great features in several MMOs. It is one of the main reasons I return to LotRO when there's a new upgrade, so that I can wear shell or a character from that world and get immersed in a historical event.

    Imagine Lusternia if you put on a shell and experience an event from the past or the future. Imagine a quest where you become a villager and fight off invading undead orcs, or a peep and put down a revolution. Imagine you guild advancement gains a quest where you walk in the shoes of a long dead memory. Make the org epic quests truly epic.
  • You really went nuts with the idea of shell, it was meant to test something, but I suppose once you make it, you dont unmake it <.<

  • Steingrim said:
    Shells!

    I really want to urge you to go the route of shells over the test server. I really hope all the design staff are doing the same.

    Add shells and code them in such a way that they can later be incorporated into quests. This is one of the great features in several MMOs. It is one of the main reasons I return to LotRO when there's a new upgrade, so that I can wear shell or a character from that world and get immersed in a historical event.

    Imagine Lusternia if you put on a shell and experience an event from the past or the future. Imagine a quest where you become a villager and fight off invading undead orcs, or a peep and put down a revolution. Imagine you guild advancement gains a quest where you walk in the shoes of a long dead memory. Make the org epic quests truly epic.

    Liked mainly for the variety it would bring. GW2 has a few features such as this that make events/quests/games really entertaining and I guess engaging. Though this could be a tangent from the thread...
  • MoiMoi
    edited August 2013
    Xenthos said:
    Iytha said:
    Xenthos said:
    Yes.  Drastically so.
    Not necessarily! You could easily have affliction categories for wounding on each limb (head, chest, gut, 2 arms, 2 legs) blunt, cutting, piercing, and bleeding. And buff categories, of which we have already confirmed there will be ones for armour, weapons and shields. Possibly even more than one for each. And other buffs as well. Plus afflictions for tertiary skillsets. And skills that deliver more than one type of condition, have different maxes or minimums, skills that combine in unusual ways, skills that give afflictions in one category but require afflictions from another to unlock them, all sorts of opportunities to make things complicated.

    We won't see until some sample shells are done and some sample skillsets put out for consideration.
    Uh.  You may not have seen it, but part of the warrior change "suggestion" is to reduce warriors to having just 4 attacks (instead of the oodles of attacks we have now).  A swing for cutting, a jab for cutting, a swing for blunt and a jab for blunt.  Also, discussion of removing the miss rate.

    That's a lot of simplification right there, so, yeah.  Obviously warriors would still be attacking body parts and it would thus be more complex than others in that sense, just much less so than now.
    I did indeed miss this. Quotes, please!
  • question about warrior changes- will the high end insta-kills still exist (behead, bashbrain, etc) and will they still be based on deepwounds, or are deepwounds getting scratched as well? I didnt see anything about this, so thought I'd ask
  • ElanorwenElanorwen The White Falconess
    Malikai said:
    question about warrior changes- will the high end insta-kills still exist (behead, bashbrain, etc) and will they still be based on deepwounds, or are deepwounds getting scratched as well? I didnt see anything about this, so thought I'd ask
    Considering how early in the planning stages this is? I doubt warrior deep wounds have been discussed yet, but I also doubt that they'll get scratched. Afflictions might get changed around to conform with the rest of the game, but deep wounds are likely here to stay. After having played warrior and been bored of it in both Achaea and Aetolia, I think it's safe to say that Lusty warriors are a hell of a lot more interesting than the ones there.
    image

    Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
  • Can Monks become less complicated and a hassle to use as part of the remakes? Sometimes I consider Monk again but then I remain the painstaking time it takes to reconfig stuff and the pain it was to use katas.


    p.s: If anyone says Monks is an easy system, then you deserve your fingers to be chopped off. Think of others here!
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman, Sockpuppeteer to the Gods
    Heh, monks take a lot of time up-front to figure out, but once you do... (You should also write down your katas and share them, takes most of the work out for newer players)
  • Malikai said:
    question about warrior changes- will the high end insta-kills still exist (behead, bashbrain, etc) and will they still be based on deepwounds, or are deepwounds getting scratched as well? I didnt see anything about this, so thought I'd ask
    I'd be shocked if the instakills were removed. Instakills are what allow IRE games to be 'balanced' and give the player's the illusion of 'balance'.
Sign In or Register to comment.