I just don't like people misrepresenting fire forte and making it look like something completely unique to Gaudi, as a skill concept at least.
Though Halli having a counter dmp to it definitely makes it awkward too.
I know your pain of skill misrepresentation. You are not alone.
So then why don't we just randomize damage weaknesses on all the mobs until there's an equal number of mobs weak to every damage type? Aside from the fact it would be a pain and a half to code and likely would make Saesh, Ieptix, and any other coders hate me forever if they were told to do this?
/shrug it's not like it's something only people enemied to Gaudi have ever said (hint: Including me, back when Seren was allied with Gaudi)
Did the chart from the last page suddenly go away? Did the good chunk of denizens weak to fire vanish? Fire is the damage type that the majority of players are going to be weak to. It is the best old damage type. Having your org specialize in fire damage, with org-only synergistic boosts to fire damage is a boon, and a pretty good one. Is it broken? No, not any more than other annoying damage disparities (like the cosmic damages). At least it can be mitigated by a range of abilities, unlike the cosmic damage types. Does me saying this instead of Shuyin present more of a partisan issue than dismissing anything I say on the subject because of (one of) my (character's) org affiliation? I don't think so.
I don't understand this partisan thing anyways. It's literally impossible to talk about skillsets with no reference to faction in game. Skills are tied to faction. So yes, any time I want to talk about druids, the conversation is going to involve the HS, the BT, Seren and Glom - especially when talking about how skills fit into the bigger picture. You're going to ultimately need to talk about how one guild or one org synergizes, what the strengths and weaknesses are there, and so on.
Well anyways, during the racial part of the Overhaul, it might be worth looking at racial weaknesses/resistances and adjusting them. Not necessarily with a mind to swap around to different elements and make things more even that way, but by recognizing that a level x weakness to a damage type will hurt you more than a level x resistance to a type will help you, as damage classes have more flexibility to avoid hitting with damage types their victim is resistant to.
That might help alleviate some destro concerns, along with general damage/hp and buff stacking changes.
/shrug it's not like it's something only people enemied to Gaudi have ever said (hint: Including me, back when Seren was allied with Gaudi)
Did the chart from the last page suddenly go away? Did the good chunk of denizens weak to fire vanish? Fire is the damage type that the majority of players are going to be weak to. It is the best old damage type. Having your org specialize in fire damage, with org-only synergistic boosts to fire damage is a boon, and a pretty good one. Is it broken? No, not any more than other annoying damage disparities (like the cosmic damages). At least it can be mitigated by a range of abilities, unlike the cosmic damage types. Does me saying this instead of Shuyin present more of a partisan issue than dismissing anything I say on the subject because of (one of) my (character's) org affiliation? I don't think so.
I don't understand this partisan thing anyways. It's literally impossible to talk about skillsets with no reference to faction in game. Skills are tied to faction. So yes, any time I want to talk about druids, the conversation is going to involve the HS, the BT, Seren and Glom - especially when talking about how skills fit into the bigger picture. You're going to ultimately need to talk about how one guild or one org synergizes, what the strengths and weaknesses are there, and so on.
Partisanship is when the same group or groups, which usually translate to in game alliances, agree or disagree on the the same issues repeatedly over an extended period of time. Of course it's not as simple as "everything has to do with some org," and I know you are smart enough to know that is not what it's about. Destruction debates follow the same partisan lines, not coincidentally I think, as the "the south is better than the north," argument from several days ago along with the trend of "things we don't have vs things we do." Does you saying it make it more partisan than X character? It could, because the way you phrase your opinions often implies they are facts rather than perspectives. For example, maybe Shuyin thinks psychic is actually the best old damage type because dmp for it is so sparse. Maybe Saesh thinks excoro is the best because Saesh thought PK was more important than mob grinding. It's the opinions like this, rather than the evidence, that make an argument partisan. "Fire damage has more racial weaknesses than cold," is not a partisan argument. If that's really all the argument against destruction was, I wouldn't be saying this!
I don't disagree with any of the points raised about destruction, I disagree with the scale of the problem. What ultimately amounts to a 2-3% DMP damage bonus for 2 or 3 combatants over fireforte is not, to me, an issue that warrants such frequent complaints.
I wasn't conflating fireforte with the bits about destro, or my comment about it being nice to be focused around fire damage (I even qualified that this wasn't broken, that it just was). I even pointed out that FireForte isn't unique, nor is it even the strongest example of its type, that Spiritsingers and their AncestralFued are! So I'm a little confused on that front. I'm also confused at how talking about destruction is partisan when every 'side' can get it, and I just said that Serenwilde's bards are the best at boosting the damage of their allies!
Is it really up for contest that of the old damage types, fire is the most useful in the most wide range of types - better in all but the most niche cases? Both for PvE and PvP, if you go through and just... count the resistances and weakness, accounting for those which are most played and so on, you'll have more fire weakness than anything else, and in higher concentrations. Those people are welcome to think those things, it just doesn't tend to hold up, except in very niche situations. Fire damage not only has more racial weaknesses than cold, it has four times as many, and 11 more than the next runner up. If you filter the race list by the races most widely played, things tend to skew even further in that direction.
So... In the most wide range of situations and against the widest range of targets, if you have a choice between doing fire damage or another type of (old) damage, of which you likely only have 1-2 options (and unless you're Illuminatus, not psychic), you are probably going to be better off using fire than your other types. Sure, in some niche cases, where you have some unlikely or rare type (like 100% poison against a not-nature user, or being the one guild with a full strength psychic attack), you might pick another type for the occasion, but your default probably is (and probably should be) your 100% fire attack. In short, it's the best (old) type. After all the bemoaning posts that are too long, should I be making every comment that verbose?
I don't know what to say about even "just a 2-3% difference" being a big deal. When damage resistances/weaknesses for PvE were introduced 'mere' 7% differences caused a lot of friction between admins and players. 2-3 ~= 7, and I agree that fireforte itself isn't really an issue and so on, but pretending it doesn't make a difference is pointless and frustrating. Just because something isn't a game-breaking problem doesn't mean it should be ignored or become taboo somehow.
I don't believe I ever stated "Enyalida," nor accused you of conflating anything at any point during any of my commentary! I brought up partisanship, to which you responded, and then I responded to you as opposed to responding about you.
Indeed, it should not be ignored and is not pointless. It is fortunate I didn't say that either!
You quoted me, and talked specifically about how you felt I came across when talking about issues, in a conversation of partisanship, while bringing up an earlier series of posts I made - as an example of partisanship. What's a goyle to think... Unless you're flirting with me? Winter is Serenwilde's spring, after all*.
*To be fair, so is every season.
EDIT: Sorry if that really was off base, but with such a proponderance of oblique (and direct) references, that seemed pretty directed.
I rebutted your argument where you used yourself as example, Enyalida. I quoted you only because you used yourself and Shuyin as points of reference. I also used Shuyin. And myself! I would have used Trader Bob if you had used him. I then brought up a series of conversations involving several people on both sides.
Partisanship really isn't about just you, or you at all if you don't think it is.
I am curious why only Loralaria has the whole "get better with gem" mechanic. Their songs are already good, why did they gain the doubling up? We gain 10 dmp buff to fire, they get 10/20 resist, minstrels have a number of weaker songs, and we have none of the access to the incredibly one sided affliction that is aeon in ours songs. Symphonium has a huge edge in groups (there's no solo anymore) and they get passive lust which gives them an edge on all enemy based classes. Geeze they are OP.
The irony is someone called for a song to counteract our dmp buff, and didn't realize they already had a song that did that very thing. The above is accurate, but more to point out that people will always argue about the other sides stuff. You do not cure drunk, so clearly minstrels are incredible right?
Those aside it does seem like the scary versions of everything ended up in the new orgs, possibly so they had something newer looking.
Haegl is not a question of organization, being able to double haegl is universal and with the exception of the two newer cities, everyone has a mana kill for it. 1p is too small, and I am wondering what the requirement for this is otherwise. The only use I see for double haegl one on one is swoop, but should we have a superior method on one side of the border? Sure. That does not seem like ample reason to leave it be, and I would still support the removal of double haegl in general.
With the overhaul I am also hoping for (other than affliction things and buffs and racials and stats) adjustment of some other problem skills. Things like removing from phase/plane is pretty nasty and should be more limited. Dodging in general can go away if possible or be changed how it works moderately. We had dodging and we added other dodges, but most were changed, then we added foresight which is superior in every way and has a pittance of a cost. Dodging is unproductive, it leads to essentially failing for no other reason than a die roll, and I would rather be more survivable than have a low chance to suddenly dodge (note its about 12% base, 6% if it fired recently or if you attacked). Similarly, I am wondering what is going to occur with healing as there are far fewer affs, and having anyone designed as a brick wall (especially if they still have an offense) is just not fun for anyone involved.
EDIT: As to destruction. It is pure fire damage (often a weakness yes), seems fairly buffable, is rather quick and meshes well with some of the "best races", and it seems like most every death event is won by using destruction, with major bonus's in places where things are weak to it (iceburn plains). In groups we see destruction used a lot and it HURTS, it is not a theoretical pain, it can often do more than many others do without even being set up for it. Any skill that replaces the need for skill is probably devolving combat in some form. Or in other terms: If destruction is a better choice than your actual offense or even your bashing attack (if you are lazy you bash) then destruction may be an issue since in theory everyone kind of has access to it.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Though this thread began with a spot of negativity (who did that anyway... >>), I find it a rather nice venting location concerning skills as well as bringing up any issues players are seeing.
On a side note, concerning buffs, I'd love if it could become a mechanical rule that no ability may exceed more than a 10 DMP/damage boost. I find abilities that are giving 15 to 20 a bit excessive.
Limiting the abilities themselves would be a little ineffective, limiting the maximum is probably more worthwhile. Health buffs should probably take higher priority, though, getting that monster in control, and then tweaking the damage formulae of whatever needs to be tweaked should be done first, then we can look at and tackle dmp.
Limiting the abilities themselves would be a little ineffective, limiting the maximum is probably more worthwhile. Health buffs should probably take higher priority, though, getting that monster in control, and then tweaking the damage formulae of whatever needs to be tweaked should be done first, then we can look at and tackle dmp.
That was my point, yes, to place a limit of how much a buff can give. !0 across all boards (as the maximum). Some abilities alone give 20 currently.
No, I meant, the maximum dmp a person can reach after stacking all the buffs they can get their hands on. Limiting each ability to 10 doesn't do much if the person gets access to 10 different abilities with buffs to the same damage type, giving him still a great deal of dmp in total.
It's better to look at the big picture and limit it via the total dmp, so that certain abilities can still give high dmp, but the person will max out at a number and can't get to outlier circumstances.
No, I meant, the maximum dmp a person can reach after stacking all the buffs they can get their hands on. Limiting each ability to 10 doesn't do much if the person gets access to 10 different abilities with buffs to the same damage type, giving him still a great deal of dmp in total.
It's better to look at the big picture and limit it via the total dmp, so that certain abilities can still give high dmp, but the person will max out at a number and can't get to outlier circumstances.
Why not do both? Max 10 per skill, and max 50 overall. (or whatever numbers make sense) As far as I know the plan is to only look at the max total.
Well, that's an option of course. Though it might make sense that some skillsets are naturally stronger at giving defensive bonuses. One example off the top of my mind is psymet - it's known as one of the tankier skillsets for bashing because of the hefty amounts of dmp it provides, but it also lacks quite a bit of pvp options as compared to its alternative for monks. It would make sense that a psymet user needs to search for less sources of dmp before reaching the cap, after all, its not like they get all that dmp without giving up something else in return.
Of course, that can be changed post-overhaul, if such is the decision. We could take these dmp heavy skillsets and move them toward more offensive, or utility based usages, and cut down on their dmp through envoy changes, if the admin feel that it'd rather make limits for dmp on a per-ability basis on top of the maximum cap, and if they are willing to move away from the concept of such dmp-heavy skills. I, for one, would welcome changes that make psymet stronger in pvp in return for giving up some of its dmp. But that's a discussion for the future, since we don't know the plan for capping buffs yet, and, as I mentioned, capping health buffs should probably take priority anyway.
I'm curious how many times it needs to be said that buffs will be looked at and capped before Arcanis gets it
Yes they said they'll look into it, but they didnt say how they'll change it. AFAIK, it'll mostly be focusing on racial (rather crazy on some) stats, and then later reviewing all the extra elements people can gain to increase damage potential. I was simply supplying an idea.
Additionally, the changes to buffs is going to come after the affliction overhaul, which then comes I believe the racial tuning(?), so we're a bit far-off for now.
Well, here is the thing: I handle Kelly's Cantor combo (as shown in the logs) fine without any special tricks or defenses:
-I'm a druid, my two class defenses are physical dmp and cold dmp. ( And a smattering of others as eco/shaman, but I usually am not eco and neither provided divinus defense).
-My one and only combat artifact is my rune of demesnes,
-I'm an Elfen, not the tankiest race, though somewhat more so than Faeling
-I don't typically upkeep throne/quest blessings.
-I don't typically upkeep karma blessings.
-I DO tinker with my system, some
-I DO notice (personally, me) when a cantor starts doing warrior attacks, and check my affs.
-I'm not currently using stagbag very well, and haven't been for some time. It's less of a boon in these cases than most people assume too, due to how it works.
Big one:
-I survive Kelly's Cantor blast as presented by Arcanis here. (That's not to say I would necessarily endorse or agree with ALL Cantor strategies being totally fair, or whatever.)
In other words, there aren't some arcane hoops Arcanis is being asked to jump through to protect himself from an otherwise air-tight strategy. It's not a matter of some complex and arduous work-around required, it's just plain doing things normally.
I agree that damage buffing and cosmic damage types should be looked at (As they ARE) across the board... just not with Arcanis's specific complaint.
That's everyone's hope, but dramaturgy doesn't produce actual illusions.
They're like better illusions (no chance to see through them) that also deal affs, but must contain the target's name. That means that if you're using code that can recognize a player's class automatically (or just allows you to manually set it), you can make it so that the scene is ignored, and it just checks for predictable affs like anorexia/lust. Basically, it's a system tax - if your system doesn't know how, you're screwed. If you take the time to jigger in the proper checks - they don't really work.
Comments
Though Halli having a counter dmp to it definitely makes it awkward too.
Signature!
Right, it's definitely not Gaudiguch's fault.
Did the chart from the last page suddenly go away? Did the good chunk of denizens weak to fire vanish? Fire is the damage type that the majority of players are going to be weak to. It is the best old damage type. Having your org specialize in fire damage, with org-only synergistic boosts to fire damage is a boon, and a pretty good one. Is it broken? No, not any more than other annoying damage disparities (like the cosmic damages). At least it can be mitigated by a range of abilities, unlike the cosmic damage types. Does me saying this instead of Shuyin present more of a partisan issue than dismissing anything I say on the subject because of (one of) my (character's) org affiliation? I don't think so.
Is it really up for contest that of the old damage types, fire is the most useful in the most wide range of types - better in all but the most niche cases? Both for PvE and PvP, if you go through and just... count the resistances and weakness, accounting for those which are most played and so on, you'll have more fire weakness than anything else, and in higher concentrations. Those people are welcome to think those things, it just doesn't tend to hold up, except in very niche situations. Fire damage not only has more racial weaknesses than cold, it has four times as many, and 11 more than the next runner up. If you filter the race list by the races most widely played, things tend to skew even further in that direction.
So... In the most wide range of situations and against the widest range of targets, if you have a choice between doing fire damage or another type of (old) damage, of which you likely only have 1-2 options (and unless you're Illuminatus, not psychic), you are probably going to be better off using fire than your other types. Sure, in some niche cases, where you have some unlikely or rare type (like 100% poison against a not-nature user, or being the one guild with a full strength psychic attack), you might pick another type for the occasion, but your default probably is (and probably should be) your 100% fire attack. In short, it's the best (old) type. After all the bemoaning posts that are too long, should I be making every comment that verbose?
Plus @Llandros can finally get to upgrading QueensLament
On a side note, concerning buffs, I'd love if it could become a mechanical rule that no ability may exceed more than a 10 DMP/damage boost. I find abilities that are giving 15 to 20 a bit excessive.
That was my point, yes, to place a limit of how much a buff can give. !0 across all boards (as the maximum). Some abilities alone give 20 currently.
It's better to look at the big picture and limit it via the total dmp, so that certain abilities can still give high dmp, but the person will max out at a number and can't get to outlier circumstances.
Max 10 per skill, and max 50 overall. (or whatever numbers make sense) As far as I know the plan is to only look at the max total.
Of course, that can be changed post-overhaul, if such is the decision. We could take these dmp heavy skillsets and move them toward more offensive, or utility based usages, and cut down on their dmp through envoy changes, if the admin feel that it'd rather make limits for dmp on a per-ability basis on top of the maximum cap, and if they are willing to move away from the concept of such dmp-heavy skills. I, for one, would welcome changes that make psymet stronger in pvp in return for giving up some of its dmp. But that's a discussion for the future, since we don't know the plan for capping buffs yet, and, as I mentioned, capping health buffs should probably take priority anyway.
Additionally, the changes to buffs is going to come after the affliction overhaul, which then comes I believe the racial tuning(?), so we're a bit far-off for now.