EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
Probably a corporate thing. "Yes, we know you are backed up on envoy things that need to be changed. We know you are working overtime to completely overhaul your aging code base and make the game a better and more attractive one to players. But, you know. we REALLY need that aethergoop thing, and as many curios as possible. That's the priority."
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
Money to pay the paid coder is required for any of that to happen. So unless we want to start some kind of kick starter, cutting promotional coding time would greatly prolong or even end any kind of overhaul efforts.
I know a big review of existing code has been going on/was going on. You see the occasional adjustment here and there and then questions over the envoy aether. We have been pretty left in the dark though. It's not clear if things hit some kind of hurtle, are being reevaluated, if the project is being scaled back some or has just been tabled for now. There really isn't any way to know that kind of stuff until we are told.
Money to pay the paid coder is required for any of that to happen. So unless we want to start some kind of kick starter, cutting promotional coding time would greatly prolong or even end any kind of overhaul efforts.
I know a big review of existing code has been going on/was going on. You see the occasional adjustment here and there and then questions over the envoy aether. We have been pretty left in the dark though. It's not clear if things hit some kind of hurtle, are being reevaluated, if the project is being scaled back some or has just been tabled for now. There really isn't any way to know that kind of stuff until we are told.
I've always been adverse to buying combat artifacts because I believe it shrinks the size of the 1v1 PvP player base, but I would probably shovel up some cash for a kickstarter if they could come up with a concept for the overhaul that most of us are excited about and behind.
Hello everyone! If you hadn't noticed Announce Post #2347, here it is:
ANNOUNCE NEWS #2347
Date: 7/25/2014 at 0:34
From: Estarra the Eternal
To : Everyone
Subj: Overhaul Status
Just to let you know we haven't forgotten about Project Overhaul! Although we have been somewhat stalled (for which I take full responsibility), we have been working on streamlining some of the core overhaul code and reviewing design. However, I'd like us to try and get back on track!
To that end, I'd like to introduce you to Saesh the Mini-Anomaly! Saesh will now be the lead on Project Overhaul and will be asking for player input on the forums. Don't be surprised to see Saesh getting his hands dirty by taking on an Overhaul Shell persona (in the arena) and asking for others to spar for testing combat balance and gathering feedback.
Penned by My hand on the 11th of Urlachmar, in the year 389 CE.
As Estarra has said, we are working on getting the Overhaul back on track and have not forgotten about it! Your input in this process is extremely valuable to me and the rest of us involved, so I will be seeking it out both here and over envoys, as well as jumping in to shells myself.
For now I'm just looking for general feedback regarding the existing shells and what is and is not working. Specifically issues that are keeping you from testing the shells and major design flaws that interfere with your testing. (for example: how bards could not apply earache when originally released). The plan is to get the bards more or less how we want them (within reason) before moving on.
I'm here for questions, comments, complaints, whatever. I look forward to working with you!
Do you have credentials in combat or should we assume you have no idea? For instance, do you think the current level of afflicting and curing are okay? I do not know how long a fight is intended to run so I do not know the desired levels.
I only know about some afflictions being given to random people in game, I do not know many bugs. Do you have any plans thus far?
I'm taking the general silence over envoys and forums regarding my last post to mean that none of you managed to break the shells and they are more or less functioning as desired. This is good news! I want to be sure we have fully functional framework before we get into the meat of the overhaul.
The plan was to get in to the shells this past weekend but I got side tracked with other things. That being said, I am around lurking in the dark corners of the divine world. I want to stress that I believe the success of this project hinges on a successful dialogue between you, the players actually participating in the system, and myself. Much like how the envoy system works, multiple perspectives will lead to the best solution. If you don't, then it'll just be my ideas. Maybe I'll bring back dilute. Or 250 room demesnes.
All of that being said, I encourage you start working with the shells again and provide feedback here, through your envoy, or via messaging in the game. Specifically what I'm looking for is if you feel the affliction rates are reasonable. There is no set in stone rule regarding how long a fight should last or how quickly afflictions should build. Generally speaking, afflictions that are building to max levels despite high level curing in under a minute is bad, as is being unable to build affliction levels at all. I would also like to know what you think about the affects of the afflictions, are some far better than others? Are some too strong entirely? Once we are comfortable with the affliction rates of the bard guilds, we can release the next batch of shells for you all to play with. Warriors are looking very interesting!
What happened to the previous bugs? I know that I have at least one or two bugs from overhaul shells that are still classified, involving some older affs being mixed in with the new system (and therefore being incurable).
Is there dialogue desired... in the vein of this thread (suggestions for new/different overarching mechanics), or more in the "This looks like a bug, this balance should be faster/slower" direction only, as you specifically asked for?
That said, affliction levels are too fast. Some of the bard shells are incapacitating with passives alone, especially with some relatively dangerous affs at really early aff stages. The one that really comes to mind right now is Raklang, who can permanently knock his opponent (or close to it) off herb balance with dark master and quickly build several passive aff trees, which include recklessness and a strong amount of hindering. That said, most of the shells struck me as very quickly incapacitating their opponent by spamming majorseventh or their favorite tarot attack. I think a sweet spot in this mechanics build will be very difficult to find, and once a general setting is found, the aeon/curehinder spamming guilds will absolutely stomp them (and group combat too, can't forget about that), creating a 'sap' problem in such a generalized balancing strategy.
I didn't have the chance to test the newer bard guild shells, they were really heavily bugged last time I looked in on it, and I haven't had the chance recently to give it a go over, I may in the next day have a little bit of time, assuming I can find someone to test with me.
EDIT: Part of my silence, aside from RL and IC obligations that have been keeping me busy, is that I have no idea what comments/input will be useful, applied, or even seriously considered. It feels like the entire thing is edging towards the wrong direction, making worse a lot of problems the combat player-base has been aware of to fix problems that only exist from an administrative perspective.
I'm not sure what you mean by "making worse a lot of problems the combat player-base has been aware of to fix problems that only exist from an administrative perspective." It's difficult to speak for "the playerbase" or the administration as an individual in any scenario. However, I do understand that there is sometimes a divergence in opinion on these things between the administration and the combat playerbase. I am here to bridge that gap.
That being said, the overarching existing balance concerns, as I understand them, are damage levels in group combat and the min/max buff stacking. Both of which are addressed to some degree with the overhaul. I.E. the overhaul caps the level with which you can stack any type of buff. I'm not aware of any existing mainstream balance concerns regarding affliction rates/cure rates save for some complaints regarding specific guilds.
Right now, based on the limited feedback I have, curing is too slow and/or afflictions build to fast and the system heavily favors those that can control or hinder curing (i.e. cacophony).
After I can spend some more time in the shells, I will look in to whether or not we need more levels between the affliction tiers per your suggestion. I am of the opinion that passives in and of themselves should not build affliction levels without influence from outside skills (i.e. tarot) nor should mashing 1 button build to a kill method. The sweet spot, as you say, will be difficult to find.
My only caution at this point in terms of feedback is to understand that this is a work in progress, it is not being released today or tomorrow. I encourage you to offer whatever suggestions you feel strongly about, and roll with the punches when we inevitably have to say "no" to one thing or another.
Lusternia's current combat system has a number of issues that the overhaul is supposed to address. Buffs have gotten out of control over time and players have reached levels of damage and maximum vitals that go beyond what I think was intended in the design. The way stats are handled right now on a racial level is unbalanced, and tying it to class and equalizing them sounds like a great solution. I used to disagree that willpower and endurance should be dropped, but I've changed my mind on that now too, and see them as worthless stats. All these changes that were proposed in the overhaul, I am okay with.
However, the direction of the current affliction system is not desirable to me. It removes much of the complexity that made combat interesting in the first place. While I understand that in time there will be changes and refinements, I'm not sure the current direction will create a system preferable to the old one. We definitely had flaws in the old system, and quite a number of afflictions that served no purpose. It was also a very complicated system where changing an affliction for one class could cause untoward effects to game combat as a whole. But as it is now, it goes too far in the other direction and becomes oversimplified. It lacks real strategy and substance. It also effectively has no skill gap now.
What I think we might need is some general plot points of what you think were problems in the old system and how you think the new system will improve it. For instance, if we're adamantly not adding group scaling, then how does this system aim to curb the problems with group combat? One thing that Enyalida and others brought up is that right now group combat might have gotten worse. You made afflictions deadly more early and sped up the duration of combat significantly.
Speaking for myself, I'm just not sure speeding up a curing balance or two or adding more affliction levels is going to make this more appealing. It'll need a lot more reworking from the ground up and a bit more of a soul to it.
I agree, much of what @Rivius is pointing out falls into my third point, made back in November. Especially with regards to required skill/tactics and group mechanics. Adding another layer of complexity (as mentioned in my posts earlier in the thread) as well as adding in a series of new affliction tracks would inject a warrior-esque strategy into combat, potentially curbing group problems and generally slowing down rocket tag dynamics.
One of the things I was talking about when I said "administrative angle problems" was the large pool of afflictions. As long as there aren't meaningless/useless/repeat afflictions bloating the system needlessly, I see zero issue with having a really big pool of afflictions. By and large, most fighters will not need to learn what every single aff does exactly, or how to counter every single affliction - they will have a curing system that will handle the bulk of incoming afflictions for them, allowing them to focus on their offense. The easiest way to fix the 'entanglement' problems @Rivius mentioned, where envoys cannot effectively balance one guild without unbalancing another (see the mage/druid tert choices and their interaction with sap) would be solved by creating more afflictions, and properly segregating them so that the majority of each guild's afflictions were exclusive to them.
Besides problem with buff and damage stacking, there is a general issue with people stacking, where numbers have become absolute king, because with only a few extra people, an otherwise evenly matched group will be overwhelmed. By and large, you are either not being attacked or are being focused down so fast you cannot react and basically don't get to play, unless you have one of a few very powerful (and pretty damn unfair) skills, like trueheal.
That is why I believe that any new system should take into account the need for anti-clumping measures and other problems in a way that is baked in, instead of patched on. For eva, various approaches to fixing these systemic problems have been rebuffed because the existing code didn't have sufficient support to justify overhauling. Once the overhaul has reached a certain point, it will again be "not worth the time" and issues just won't ever get fixed. The best time to at least plan for those fixes is now, before the sunk cost is too high.
The issue of group scaling is something I have put a lot of thought in to for a long time (even when I was a player) and while I have empathized with the issues behind group combat, I have been unable to reach the conclusion that group combat has been an issue escalated by mechanics or the administration and as such, does not necessitate admin intervention to address it. Simply put, the decision to drift towards group combat rather than small group or solo combat (both of which remain accessible for those interested) has been an entirely player motivated one. To put limitations on that, I think, would upset just as many as it appeased. If the players have chosen to make Lusternia a more group PK oriented game, which is completely fine, I am not in a position to stymie that, nor would I if I were. In fact, I believe Lusternia has many mechanics (such as demesnes, abundance of group splitting skills, etc) already in place that give smaller groups leeway against larger groups to successfully employ strategy to trump zerg style combat.
I have looked at both internal Lusternian mechanics (Nightshadeblues report, warrior stacking report) and external mechanics of thriving pk populations for comparison and inspiration, and I am of the opinion that specific issues should be addressed on a case by case basis, such as the previously noted examples, rather that universal mechanics to curb the benefits of superior numbers. As it stands, there is nothing in the cards for the overhaul that addresses group scaling.
IF the tiered style affliction system of the overhaul appears to exacerbate the issue too far, I am certainly open to review the idea again. One thing I am open to right now is expanding the existing precedent where certain skills do not stack with other players against a single target (inquisition, sacrifice), and how this can be expanded to include not being able to stack the upper tiers of afflictions off of another player's earlier afflictions (i.e. you can build to tier 3 with your ally, but whomever applied the third tier affliction has to also do the 4th and 5th...or something. I'm not sure yet). For now, it is best to put the idea of a universal group scaling mechanic to bed and focus on what we can improve within the framework of the Overhaul.
One thing I am strongly supportive of, as is Estarra, is the reduction of the number of afflictions. A personal goal is accessibility, as I feel the current system suffers from issues for level of entry, and the reduction of cures and afflictions is a great step in that direction. The overhaul also addresses, and caps, the buff stacking issue which creates a rather wide chasm between those on the pk floor and those reaching the pk ceiling, which I believe will ultimately go a long way towards addressing some major group concerns. I will say that I think the current system encourages group damage spam, as the existing buff structure allows damage to reach disproportionate levels, and would like to see the Overhaul encourage a more strategic and affliction based approach to group combat.
Class entangling is a sticky issue that I'm not certain how to address, or if it's even within the purview of the Overhaul. I certainly understand (and experience first hand) the difficulty of balancing 1 skillset across multiple, very different classes. I will have to get back to you on that.
I am also looking at the affliction tiers and how they can be adjusted to be more benign at the lower levels and the truly dangerous ones obtainable only at the higher tiers. I would agree that, in some instances, the afflictions become too powerful too early in the tier.
Currently, all the powers and abilities that give some power to a smaller group to effect a larger group... work equally well (or better) for that large group, further enhancing trench warfare style combat. Zerg combat benefits from all of these techniques just as easily, and the few abilities that really work to lever combat to help small groups tend to be guild-specific... and therefore quite one sided.
I don't think anyone is proposing that Lusternia be made 1v1 combat central, but unless something is done to the game itself, we will always gravitate towards two factioned, massive stare-offs punctuated by spam-dominated, extremly short bursts of fighting. If anything frustrates newcomers, it's knowing that they should only ever use one or two skills in a group setting, and will be instantly pulverized by older (more lesson-invested) combat groups. Even if damage is lowered, if nothing is done to help dissuade players from fighting in 10-(experienced)-players-to-a-side zergs, newer fighters will be completely overwhelmed no matter what. The idea isn't to level out the benefit of more players, but to make combat such that more situations will call for multiple targets who drop slowly and only after a wider range of abilities see use, instead of focus firing down enemies one at a time in quick succession with your kill alias.
Anyways, I don't think that lowering the number of afflictions lowers the level of entry for players, unless you're talking about level of entry for new system coders. I expect that the big system coders, who are typically professional 'computer people' and who still stand to profit , will dominate that scene no matter how simple combat becomes. At the least, adding in more aff trees could potentially solve a whole slew of issues (balance problems, entanglement, bland skillsets) , with very minor side effects: A few extra lines of wiki/help file text defining affs (And code to match, naturally).
P.S.: I'm really excited to see mages/druids, here's to hoping for no demesnes, PLEASE.
EDIT: That said, I am all for removing a cure balance and reorganizing how cures work so that it's possible to have strategic cure stacking without overwhelm tactics (which become hilariously OP with any kind of grouping) or sap/aeon locking. It's part of what makes afflicting classes need some kind of powerful (op in groups) gimmick in Lusternia, where that isn't necessarily the case in other IRE games.
Also, if the game is going to be organized around group combat because that appears to be what players want, fine... but then things need to radically change in regards to balance. Personally, I think that's a bad direction, because group combat has so many other strings attached and tends to simplify personal involvement to a huge degree.
As long as warrior combat stops being a "Roll the dice and may the odds be ever in your favour" affair, where RNG can screw someone over despite playing the perfect game, I'll be content.
I'm tired of going over logs and going "If only I'd got x affliction on y's heavy/critical wounded body part."
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
I think we should definitely consider group combat balancing as part of the overhaul. However, only insofar as to make sure that a group scenario or application of a certain skill doesn't tread into unreasonable territory. For example, having just an extra X-skill user will mean 5000% increase in damage of all members of the group - that kind of unreasonable-ness.
To put limitations and say "group combat of this amount of players should have this amount of damage and have this amount of affliction power and be limited in this way, and also be capped in that way, and not allowed to go past this amount of X value" is not really feasible, or constructive at this point in time. As it is, there IS a cap on group applications of afflictions in the Overhaul system as is implemented. Affliction trees will max out at 5, and so even if you had 10 Celestines casting a certain affliction on you, you'll never go past level 5. Therefore there already IS some form of limitation on group combat application available. Now, this system is nowhere near complete, and where we want this limitation to go, CAN be changed in the future. At this point, let's just settle on this arbitrary number, and see how things roll out.
Group combat definitely is NOT a bad thing. Maybe as it is implemented in this current system it is "no fun", or maybe as it is being proposed in the overhaul, it will be "too much", but trying to dictate the exact specifics and details of group combat in the new Overhaul system at this point in time will be as constructive as trying to hammer in the nails of the shelf before you've cut the wood.
As players, our immediate concern should be the bugs (if any) of the shells, and actual test spars using said shells. The shine of the BIG MEGA ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE OVERHAUL is no longer enrapturing the combatants, so no one is really popping into the shells to try them out nowadays. I myself have no time to play the game on a regular basis, much less try and find bugs in the shells, but if I had the time, I would think it would be more important to get the shell system actually usable (ie. find and report the debilitating bugs) than to point out flaws in the proposed overhaul combat theory at this time (which there definitely are). Not to say we should ignore those flaws, we should keep on talking about them and raising them up, but at a secondary priority to getting the shells to work.
As long as warrior combat stops being a "Roll the dice and may the odds be ever in your favour" affair, where RNG can screw someone over despite playing the perfect game, I'll be content.
I'm tired of going over logs and going "If only I'd got x affliction on y's heavy/critical wounded body part."
Yes and no. Warriors will function in the same tiered affliction system as everyone else, but the chance to afflict will scale with wounds. So it will still be a lower chance at no/low wounds, but a guaranteed affliction at critical.
Wounds pose an interested balance challenge, as they are a "heal over time" affliction and removing the random factor would also mean a severe scaling back of their affliction capabilities because reliably doing some of the best hindering afflictions available is not a great idea. The compromise is that warriors will become more reliable as the fight goes on. Considering the rate at which warriors hit heavy wounds, also known as immediately, based on the percentages afflictions should be more reliable overall without being guaranteed until critical. At any rate, the shells aren't released yet so everything is subject to change.
Also, if the game is going to be organized around group combat because that appears to be what players want, fine... but then things need to radically change in regards to balance. Personally, I think that's a bad direction, because group combat has so many other strings attached and tends to simplify personal involvement to a huge degree.
We are not organizing the overhaul around group conflict. What was said was group conflict is the choice of the players, and the overhaul will not prohibit nor hinder that choice. All balance decisions will take in to consideration both solo and group combat.
0
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
I disagree that the shift to group combat is entirely player driven. Players figure out what works best, and do that. If mass zergs didn't work the best, players wouldn't do them, but because the mechanics are the way they are, massive groups always win. Players don't choose to fight in groups because we think it is the most fun. It is simply the only way to use the mechanics available to get anything done. We react to the mechanics, not the other way around.
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
As long as warrior combat stops being a "Roll the dice and may the odds be ever in your favour" affair, where RNG can screw someone over despite playing the perfect game, I'll be content.
I'm tired of going over logs and going "If only I'd got x affliction on y's heavy/critical wounded body part."
Yes and no. Warriors will function in the same tiered affliction system as everyone else, but the chance to afflict will scale with wounds. So it will still be a lower chance at no/low wounds, but a guaranteed affliction at critical.
Wounds pose an interested balance challenge, as they are a "heal over time" affliction and removing the random factor would also mean a severe scaling back of their affliction capabilities because reliably doing some of the best hindering afflictions available is not a great idea. The compromise is that warriors will become more reliable as the fight goes on. Considering the rate at which warriors hit heavy wounds, also known as immediately, based on the percentages afflictions should be more reliable overall without being guaranteed until critical. At any rate, the shells aren't released yet so everything is subject to change.
When you say an affliction is guarenteed at critical, does that count in maneuvers? Because having a guarenteed aff at critical and finding out that means I'll always score a lacerate is about as much use as a chocolate radiator.
Also a large reason Knights are instantly hitting heavy wounds is because of weapon stat and wounding runes, and IIRC those were going away? Won't that remove the capacity for frontload burst, IE post overhaul I'm not going to get close to the wounding currently with L3 wounding runes and 597 precision.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
I disagree that the shift to group combat is entirely player driven. Players figure out what works best, and do that. If mass zergs didn't work the best, players wouldn't do them, but because the mechanics are the way they are, massive groups always win. Players don't choose to fight in groups because we think it is the most fun. It is simply the only way to use the mechanics available to get anything done. We react to the mechanics, not the other way around.
I could go in to the plethora of reasons players have chosen to adopt "zerg" style warfare, many of which do indeed find it fun, the metamorphosis of player created multi organization relationships, and the penetration of those relationships into all aspects of Lusternian conflict as the topic is undeniably an interesting one! However, I must insist the topic be moved elsewhere. I'm happy to discuss with you my perspective on the issue and work with you on possible solutions, but as I have stated a group scaling mechanic simply is not part of the Overhaul. I encourage you, or whoever, to start a thread and I will be more than willing to communicate the concern up the chain.
As long as warrior combat stops being a "Roll the dice and may the odds be ever in your favour" affair, where RNG can screw someone over despite playing the perfect game, I'll be content.
I'm tired of going over logs and going "If only I'd got x affliction on y's heavy/critical wounded body part."
Yes and no. Warriors will function in the same tiered affliction system as everyone else, but the chance to afflict will scale with wounds. So it will still be a lower chance at no/low wounds, but a guaranteed affliction at critical.
Wounds pose an interested balance challenge, as they are a "heal over time" affliction and removing the random factor would also mean a severe scaling back of their affliction capabilities because reliably doing some of the best hindering afflictions available is not a great idea. The compromise is that warriors will become more reliable as the fight goes on. Considering the rate at which warriors hit heavy wounds, also known as immediately, based on the percentages afflictions should be more reliable overall without being guaranteed until critical. At any rate, the shells aren't released yet so everything is subject to change.
When you say an affliction is guarenteed at critical, does that count in maneuvers? Because having a guarenteed aff at critical and finding out that means I'll always score a lacerate is about as much use as a chocolate radiator.
Also a large reason Knights are instantly hitting heavy wounds is because of weapon stat and wounding runes, and IIRC those were going away? Won't that remove the capacity for frontload burst, IE post overhaul I'm not going to get close to the wounding currently with L3 wounding runes and 597 precision.
Maneuvers and afflictions aren't a direct translation from the old system to the new. With the Overhaul, you will score afflictions based on what level of affliction you are applying. If they are at level 2 of affliction X tier and critical wounds, and you apply another level, you will afflict them with whatever level 3 is. Wounds levels will no longer dictate the afflictions available. Crush Gut in BC will apply 1 level of the Blunt Trauma affliction tier, and if they have no wounds, you will do no affliction. If they are at critical wounds, you will be guaranteed whatever the level 1 affliction is.
So wound level simply determines % chance of scoring the next level of afflictions?
This I like.
Edit: Are affliction levels per limb, or on the body as a whole? I mean do you need to build up affliction levels per body part (so you need to go from 1-5 per limb/chest/gut/head) or will afflictions just be "on the body" so if you've scored an L1 on the leg, you can score L2 on the arm (so long as the arm has wounds)
Also will affliction rolls be calculated before or after the wounds calculation on said body part, so if you swing and they go from 0 wounds to heavy, will the % chance for affliction go based on the limb having 0 wounds or heavy?
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
I'm probably in the minority but I think things like RNG are really good, strong balancing factors. There should never be a situation where if you do A+B+C, you win, everytime, without fail. I'm not just talking about warrior's (though I think the RNG hate is definitely exaggerated to a point), but imagine things like blanknote having the same timer everytime, or scabies ticks ticking every so many seconds.
I agree with the general consensus of buffs and things getting out of hand. The entry of combat is pretty crazy high with curios etc, but there's nothing saying we can't put a cap on DMP buffs/resistances, and it's quite possible to not let h/m/e blessings stack in the way they are now. Just say you get one blessing and everything else overwrites it. I'm also in more agreement with removing TFs now that the coins have been neutered and they are much harder to get, so TF's aren't easily accessible anymore. There are things that should definitely be looked at in the overhaul.
I'm not in agreement about groups. Groups adds a totally different dynamic and there isn't one set strategy because a lot depends on group composition etc. Yes, older, more experienced players will have an advantage, but that's natural, it should be that way, no matter what changes are made or added in. That being said, two pretty evenly matched groups can differ by a few people and the smaller group can still come out ahead if things are done right, There's a whole slew of different strategies to take advantage of in groups that make it a diverse, exciting landscape, and limiting those options by adding mechanical 'evening' factors will really just detract from it, in my opinion. If you minimize the min/maxing aspect of things, groups will even out a lot more as well (which may make numbers more of a factor, but who knows).
I disagree that the shift to group combat is entirely player driven. Players figure out what works best, and do that. If mass zergs didn't work the best, players wouldn't do them, but because the mechanics are the way they are, massive groups always win. Players don't choose to fight in groups because we think it is the most fun. It is simply the only way to use the mechanics available to get anything done. We react to the mechanics, not the other way around.
Players don't figure out what works best, they figure out what's easy and complain about anything else, and it's easier just to throw numbers than actually learn things like strategy and tactics.
We do not have solo combat in Lusternia, so we should be balancing to groups. Mechanics currently support groups, and weigh heavily against solo combat.
Unrelated note though, because I am staying hands off: We have an idea how afflicter classes will work, and now warriors. Neither system seems ideal for monks, as they will either create physical levels very very quickly, or we are changing what afflictions they do. How will monks work out? Complete overhaul or some pseudo system to tie with warrior affs?
Comments
I've always been adverse to buying combat artifacts because I believe it shrinks the size of the 1v1 PvP player base, but I would probably shovel up some cash for a kickstarter if they could come up with a concept for the overhaul that most of us are excited about and behind.
Hello again!
I'm taking the general silence over envoys and forums regarding my last post to mean that none of you managed to break the shells and they are more or less functioning as desired. This is good news! I want to be sure we have fully functional framework before we get into the meat of the overhaul.
The plan was to get in to the shells this past weekend but I got side tracked with other things. That being said, I am around lurking in the dark corners of the divine world. I want to stress that I believe the success of this project hinges on a successful dialogue between you, the players actually participating in the system, and myself. Much like how the envoy system works, multiple perspectives will lead to the best solution. If you don't, then it'll just be my ideas. Maybe I'll bring back dilute. Or 250 room demesnes.
All of that being said, I encourage you start working with the shells again and provide feedback here, through your envoy, or via messaging in the game. Specifically what I'm looking for is if you feel the affliction rates are reasonable. There is no set in stone rule regarding how long a fight should last or how quickly afflictions should build. Generally speaking, afflictions that are building to max levels despite high level curing in under a minute is bad, as is being unable to build affliction levels at all. I would also like to know what you think about the affects of the afflictions, are some far better than others? Are some too strong entirely? Once we are comfortable with the affliction rates of the bard guilds, we can release the next batch of shells for you all to play with. Warriors are looking very interesting!
Is there dialogue desired... in the vein of this thread (suggestions for new/different overarching mechanics), or more in the "This looks like a bug, this balance should be faster/slower" direction only, as you specifically asked for?
I'm not sure what you mean by "making worse a lot of problems the combat player-base has been aware of to fix problems that only exist from an administrative perspective." It's difficult to speak for "the playerbase" or the administration as an individual in any scenario. However, I do understand that there is sometimes a divergence in opinion on these things between the administration and the combat playerbase. I am here to bridge that gap.
That being said, the overarching existing balance concerns, as I understand them, are damage levels in group combat and the min/max buff stacking. Both of which are addressed to some degree with the overhaul. I.E. the overhaul caps the level with which you can stack any type of buff. I'm not aware of any existing mainstream balance concerns regarding affliction rates/cure rates save for some complaints regarding specific guilds.
Right now, based on the limited feedback I have, curing is too slow and/or afflictions build to fast and the system heavily favors those that can control or hinder curing (i.e. cacophony).
After I can spend some more time in the shells, I will look in to whether or not we need more levels between the affliction tiers per your suggestion. I am of the opinion that passives in and of themselves should not build affliction levels without influence from outside skills (i.e. tarot) nor should mashing 1 button build to a kill method. The sweet spot, as you say, will be difficult to find.
My only caution at this point in terms of feedback is to understand that this is a work in progress, it is not being released today or tomorrow. I encourage you to offer whatever suggestions you feel strongly about, and roll with the punches when we inevitably have to say "no" to one thing or another.
Besides problem with buff and damage stacking, there is a general issue with people stacking, where numbers have become absolute king, because with only a few extra people, an otherwise evenly matched group will be overwhelmed. By and large, you are either not being attacked or are being focused down so fast you cannot react and basically don't get to play, unless you have one of a few very powerful (and pretty damn unfair) skills, like trueheal.
I'm tired of going over logs and going "If only I'd got x affliction on y's heavy/critical wounded body part."
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
To put limitations and say "group combat of this amount of players should have this amount of damage and have this amount of affliction power and be limited in this way, and also be capped in that way, and not allowed to go past this amount of X value" is not really feasible, or constructive at this point in time. As it is, there IS a cap on group applications of afflictions in the Overhaul system as is implemented. Affliction trees will max out at 5, and so even if you had 10 Celestines casting a certain affliction on you, you'll never go past level 5. Therefore there already IS some form of limitation on group combat application available. Now, this system is nowhere near complete, and where we want this limitation to go, CAN be changed in the future. At this point, let's just settle on this arbitrary number, and see how things roll out.
Group combat definitely is NOT a bad thing. Maybe as it is implemented in this current system it is "no fun", or maybe as it is being proposed in the overhaul, it will be "too much", but trying to dictate the exact specifics and details of group combat in the new Overhaul system at this point in time will be as constructive as trying to hammer in the nails of the shelf before you've cut the wood.
As players, our immediate concern should be the bugs (if any) of the shells, and actual test spars using said shells. The shine of the BIG MEGA ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE OVERHAUL is no longer enrapturing the combatants, so no one is really popping into the shells to try them out nowadays. I myself have no time to play the game on a regular basis, much less try and find bugs in the shells, but if I had the time, I would think it would be more important to get the shell system actually usable (ie. find and report the debilitating bugs) than to point out flaws in the proposed overhaul combat theory at this time (which there definitely are). Not to say we should ignore those flaws, we should keep on talking about them and raising them up, but at a secondary priority to getting the shells to work.
Also a large reason Knights are instantly hitting heavy wounds is because of weapon stat and wounding runes, and IIRC those were going away? Won't that remove the capacity for frontload burst, IE post overhaul I'm not going to get close to the wounding currently with L3 wounding runes and 597 precision.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
This I like.
Edit: Are affliction levels per limb, or on the body as a whole? I mean do you need to build up affliction levels per body part (so you need to go from 1-5 per limb/chest/gut/head) or will afflictions just be "on the body" so if you've scored an L1 on the leg, you can score L2 on the arm (so long as the arm has wounds)
Also will affliction rolls be calculated before or after the wounds calculation on said body part, so if you swing and they go from 0 wounds to heavy, will the % chance for affliction go based on the limb having 0 wounds or heavy?
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!