When you get hit with a wound-causing attack, it'll tell you what stage of wounds you're at (though not the exact number, you can check (OH)WOUNDS for that).
Hit-and-running is still perfectly viable, when I was a mortal I hit-and-ran with my 4-second caster EQ all the time. If you're bashing something where literally one attack is going to kill you, though, then I'm not terribly sympathetic because it means you're bashing something that is clearly meant to be bashed by either a group or a significantly stronger character.
Really now, if casters can do it without any health buffs, then why wouldn't warriors be able to with a 5/10 native health buff? Warriors will already be tankier and better bashers than casters due to that; let's not widen the gap even further.
Well, there's skills like timeslip and illusory self etc. to offset the slower attack. If the runes and stances work as I think, they do then it might bring the strike to below 3 seconds anyway. ( I didn't realize those things would still have an impact)
Warriors have always had better defences and more health than casters, as well as quicker attacks. Would be a shame to nerf them without a warning to the general public if people still rely on that.
Warriors were often bashing on the assumption that they could hit in less than 3 seconds. (Often just 2.5 seconds). As long as the change is made clear, and doesn't surprise anyone it should be fine. The damage output of weapons will be adjusted to make it equitable, I'm sure
I suspect that the balance on ice is going to need making faster, if it's not intended to be totally swamped from the get-go by at least three ice cured affs per round of combat.
Yay concise mechanics! I am theorycrafting here, take all numbers with a grain of salt.
Poisons:
- If broken leg is converted to an affliction (weakened leg?) and you can have both weakened and mutilated leg, that means in one combo you can get 3 afflictions (we will assume second strikes potential for an aff so you can do a wound with one hit and aff with other) that all have ice cures, plus the wounds from the other hit. You are 4 cures behind and you'll be hit again in 3.5s. This affliction rate is far too high for the cure time. Provided weakenedleg is becoming a poison affliction.
Afflictions:
- Does weakened leg stop standing? This is the version I assume is replacing broken leg, which is used by other classes.
- Most attacks are stopped by not having two working legs, so if you can too readily stack afflictions, then mutilatedleg spam will stop any actions.
Cure Delay: - Having afflictions that delay cure balance and delayed cures on those skills means they are put behind almost instantly. Specifically I am requesting more concise information on
the delay and effect of damagedorgans (@ieptix). There is also no reason for this skill to delay every cure method, and that is probably an area of concern that it is.
- Having a 3s delay on an affliction that stops attacks with attacks every 3.5 (is this modifiable with combat stance, and is it subject to the current dex system which could make this be 3s attack speed on a 3s aff?.
- You can still apply to other areas and for WOUNDS on an area while waiting on its cured, correct? I have mutilated leg at crit, I can apply ice for WOUNDS when I get balance back?
Bashing:
- The slower attacks means the damage needs to rise slightly to compensate. A pureblade bashes better than a blademaster, but both will be crappier than a mage at demigod.* (Explanation at bottom, and I am guessing at some numbers that I will note, if the numbers are actually off it tweaks slightly).
@Daganevs question: - I think I understand the question. Assuming parry does not happen and I target your chest and spam, where do we end up? At 3.5s an attack you do 2 wounds as any spec base or 1 wound per 1.75s. You will outpace applications, more so if you have to cure even a single affliction. So poisons will put you behind rapidly. Power attacks will mess this up more. Stuns will further worsen this issue.
- Because of these, you will reliably outpace anyone who is not hindering you noticeably.
Monks (not brought up but putting this out there):
- We are going to do some write ups to try to convert to the new system.
- We will have some skills rely on wounds.
- Some insta's may be aimed at using wounds and afflictions as pre-reqs as the warrior design is.
- Unless told otherwise, we are using the kata form system as it is currently made.
- Estarra said something about losing momentum dropping to 0, if that is intended we will likely steer away from it or request much higher ka at low momentum (3 forms of raze is boring for everyone).
- Monkish is going FULLY OPEN, anyone will be able to join so we can get more feedback. When we have a good sign off on things we will post it to the overhaul forum.
How fast are wounds intended to stack? Should you be crit in under 20 seconds? 30? a minute? Where is the goal on this right now?
* Explanation on bashing:
- So we draw some conclusions: We are ignoring weakness/resistance, though there is more physical resist than weakness by fair margin from what I've seen) and we are assuming the intended damage on every player is EQUAL. Aka a mage does 1000 a staff, a blademaster would do 500 a hit, a monk would do 300 a hand and 400 for kick.
- The average damage of a player is then (everyones crit rate should theoretically be equal):
dam (%normalHit) + dam ( %critHit * 2) + dam (%CrushingHit * 4) + dam ( %OblitHit * 8) + dam ( % AnniHit * 16) + dam (%worldHit * 32).
Where
dam = normal damage of a hit.
Each % hit is non crit, critical, crushing critical, obliterating critical, annihilating critical, and world shattering critical, respectively.
- Notice this means you can factor OUT damage, and simplify this to dam * ( (%normalHit) + ( %critHit * 2) + (%CrushingHit * 4) + ( %OblitHit * 8) + ( % AnniHit * 16) + (%worldHit * 32).)
- A warrior would do this twice, once for each weapon hit. Monks would do this 3 times, etc.
- Whips are notably stronger than most bashing, so we are assuming no whips.
- This means that while the average damage should be EQUAL, given equal total damage, multi hitters should have a smaller margin of variation (more crits means closer to the theoretical more often).
- This system only assumes base damage, then we run into damageShift. 1000 * 32 is a lot more damage than 500 or 300 * 32. At this point casters win provided they have another target.
- The most disadvantaged is monk at demigod, because you get 3 weak hits, but if 1 hit kills it, rest are ignored. If I crit on 300, I get the rest of only that hit left to carry damage. Mages get their full damage carried, etc. So while average damage should be equal if they do the same base damage total, the fewer hits will get faster results unless they hit at noticably different speeds. Bards, if they hit at the same level as casters, would be the winners.
Disclaimer: If all attacks are aimed at the same DPS, then this information should hold over time theoretically. it gets really messy really fast, but hopefully that helps at least. I am a monk, I bash much faster with a whip, period.
Theoretically, it is possible to get 4 ice afflictions at once, if both your legs are at critical and the blademaster legtendons both at once, with two weakenedarms/legs poisons also proccing.
However, getting to critical on both legs is likely not going to be a walk in the park, and if it happens, I think it would be reasonable as an end-game scenario, where you get a huge burst of afflictions at huge cure delays that will tie you down for long enough for all but ensure death. Such a scenario, in otherwords, is perfectly reasonable, and I don't think we need to make it any other way.
The problem, if any, will be if repeatedly spamming calcise/dendroxin on two rapiers will just overwhelm ice-curing without need for strategy. The basic idea should always be that the warrior needs to observe and find out the opponent's parry patterns and strategically attack the other bodyparts, and draw it away from the chest bodypart (or whatever goal he is aiming for). We don't want a scenario where only one poison is enough to ensure death over time, without need to care which bodypart is being hit.
By pure math, it would appear to be possible to overhwhelm ice curing, since two wound attacks with two dendroxin poisons will give 2 wounds (1 ice application?) and 2 weakenedarms (2 ice applications). At 3.5s, repeatedly doing that will ensure wounds are never cured unless the user gives up curing the affliction (2s bal for ice).
However, poisons are not 100% proc rate in the current system (not sure post-overhaul). Whether or not we want to change that, and how to change that will be decided with proper logs, I think. It's also possible to revisit the weakenedlimbs poisons and try to come up with a better way of handling them than just giving warrior/monks free ice affs every balance without reqs. Another thing to note is that, this is also a problem for one-handers more than two-handers, who will only have 1 chance for a poison per balance. We could leave it as it is, and balance one-handers by lowering their damage (or something else), possibly, as well.
As an addendum, in the current system, iirc, salve balance is 1s, so that might also explain the potential problem we're seeing on theory. I can't remember the reasoning that ended up with 2s ice balance, but it's also possible to revisit this (with proper logs) and decide whether we should change it back to 1s as well.
Re: Damagedorgans, I think it delaying every cure balance is fine, so that it can be used to enable non-ice stacks by other warrior specs or monk specs, if needed (nekotai currently works on a herb stack, while obviously a lucidity stack will not make RP sense for a warrior/monk, internal stacks are reasonable, and, in the case of the BMs, a req for their insta as well. Of course, BMs don't get access to damagedorgans, anyway.)
The bigger question regarding damagedorgans is how long the delay is, and how it interacts in the skillsets which it is available in. For now, a wait-and-see approach is probably fine.
Lastly, about bashing. It's really a non-issue. If bashing become suboptimal for warriors/monks, the dps can be envoyed and tweaked upwards. If it was arbitrarily set in stone and will never be changed, I'll be screaming louder than anyone, but the admin have repeatedly shown they will make adjustments during these periods of change as long as the proper evidence and logs are provided to justify it.
So this is a minor thing, but the new commands don't work in Org arenas (at least not in the Halli arena). Would it be possible to enable them there? Thanks.
Either I'm not understanding Eviscerate correctly, or it's being buggy.
It seems to not be counting Sickening as an internal affliction, and not counting either weakenedleg or slitthroat as an external affliction.
edit: When it does go through, it's really cool.
You drive a heavy longsword deep into Renthur's torso before drawing the blade up and out through his mutilated chest. Ribs crack audibly as blood and bile spill forth from the wound, forming a puddle of gore about his internal organs as the viscera slides to the floor with a sickening squish. Renthur's corpse collapses, dead in a matter of agonizing seconds.
Lastly, about bashing. It's really a non-issue. If bashing become suboptimal for warriors/monks, the dps can be envoyed and tweaked upwards. If it was arbitrarily set in stone and will never be changed, I'll be screaming louder than anyone, but the admin have repeatedly shown they will make adjustments during these periods of change as long as the proper evidence and logs are provided to justify it.
If its not forgotten about, and people are warned about it, its a non issue. If it hits people with a shock, it will cause some grumpiness. That's all I wanted to express. There wasn't any indication in the original post that warrior spam was to be slowed down to a manageable level
1. Why do I only have 1 wound and not 2? 2. Why is the command OHSTRIKE DAGANEV LLEG PIERCELEG doing wounds?
I'm assuming that what is going on is that the first strike sees I don't have the correct wound level and so it does wounding instead of the affliction, whille the second strike, because it does the affliction doesn't build up wounds?
Does this mean that as a player, I can use the attack of the affliction I want to give until they build up enough wounds to actually do it, and I don't have to create aliases for power-free, non affliction wound building? *hope*
If the affliction-attack has a pre-requisite based on the warrior's condition (power cost, etc), and the pre-reqs are not met, the attack will fail to activate at all, and nothing will happen.
If the affliction-attack has a pre-requisite based on the target's wounds-condition, and the pre-reqs are not met, the attack will activate, but not deal the affliction, instead, dealing a vanilla strike (with normal wounds) on that bodypart.
So, yes, in the above log, it's a case of the first strike trying to give weakenedleg, but because wound pre-reqs are not met, it defaults to a normal strike, building the 1 wound a BM strike normally gives. The second strike onwards are all successfully giving the affliction, which means it is not doing wounds, because affliction-attacks do not give wounds.
If the affliction-attack has a pre-requisite based on the warrior's condition (power cost, etc), and the pre-reqs are not met, the attack will fail to activate at all, and nothing will happen.
If the affliction-attack has a pre-requisite based on the target's wounds-condition, and the pre-reqs are not met, the attack will activate, but not deal the affliction, instead, dealing a vanilla strike (with normal wounds) on that bodypart.
So, yes, in the above log, it's a case of the first strike trying to give weakenedleg, but because wound pre-reqs are not met, it defaults to a normal strike, building the 1 wound a BM strike normally gives. The second strike onwards are all successfully giving the affliction, which means it is not doing wounds, because affliction-attacks do not give wounds.
I'm very happy to hear that was a design decision.
And in the case where the target has the pre-req and the target already has the affliction, can it revert to doing wounds? It seems currently it does only damage and bleeding.
Which is a shame. It's not going to affect people with well coded systems one way or another, but it will be a hinderance for those who do not have well coded systems. Or is there something I'm not thinking about which makes it an intended obstacle for a well coded system as well?
Here is my thinking spelled out: If it remains to be the case that if the target has the pre-reqs and the affliction that doing the attack does nothing, then I will code the following into my attack alias:
Say my alias is "weakenlleg": if (target_has_lleg_limp) { (razing code) strike @target lleg } else { (razing code) strike @target lleg pierceleg } Then I have another alias "mutilatelleg" if (target_has_llelg_mutilated) { (razing code) strike @target lleg } else { (razing code) strike @target lleg legtendon
}
If already having the pre-req and having the affliction defaults to a basic targeted strike, then I'll only need the following alias: "weakenlleg" (razing code) strike @target lleg pierceleg
I'm not so certain that the first set of code adds a compelling level of complexity, other than a "code tax". Or is there some means to hide what you cure, or a desired strategy in timing your cures to heal between the time the attacker enters the command and lands the blow?
There are definitely strategical implications with both your suggestion, and the line of thought regarding seeing what afflictions are cured by the ice cure.
The ultimate decision is with the admin, of course, but personally, I'm not too keen on making an affliction-attack default to deal wounds if the affliction is already on the target, because my opinion is that the user should have to properly grasp the combat situation to make the most of their abilities, instead of just repeatedly hitting a single button to keep the target down (same as the problem about ice speeds and weakenedlimbs as a poison)
It should be noted, however, that the above opinion is also buttressed on the assumption that the proper tools (ie. messages) to track the afflictions being given and being cured by the target are available to the warrior. If ice-applying and the subsequently cured affliction is hidden from the user, you then cannot realistically expect them to have to strategically operate on properly tracking the afflictions on the target.
That said, the overhaul external affs are narrowed down to 2 afflictions per bodypart, and it therefore shouldn't be difficult to track the affliction that an ice application cures just with simple highlights. At least, on theory, that's the case. It's possible the variable cure delay that scales to wounds may obscure and make that difficult to properly use for combat.
In short, there's an argument for it either way. If the warrior can (and is meant to be able to) properly track the afflictions they are giving and their targets are curing, then we probably shouldn't make the affliction-attacks default to a vanilla strike with wounds. If not, then yes, we probably should.
Interesting, I would think its the opposite. If its fully trackable with messages, that means it is ultimately a code requirement for a warrior system, rather than a player's grasp of the combat situation. If eventually, those who are well connected are going to have the advanced code, it seems better for Lusternia to make that code default from the get go.
If it's not fully trackable, then that means there is some intent for the warrior to "guess", and that becomes part of the balance. And the code should not be defaulting to wounds when the affliction already hit.
I would hope that the warrior is expected to keep track of which limbs to hit, and which afflictions to give and in which order, and that requires enough combat awareness to separate skilled warriors from button mashers. However, if the balance is assuming that right after an affliction hits, a good percentage of the time there will be a wasted attack, that's a different story.
There are very few afflictions in the game that you can see cured, the only ones off the top of my head are entanglements and sleeping (if you're not shrouded).
Others you can make inferences that they are cured, like paralysis, aurics, shrouded entanglements and sleeping, etc based on the actions taken by the afflicted, but no direct line will say so.
Everything else is left to educated guessing.
As long as that's the status quo for casters and the like, it should be the same for warriors. Affliction attacks shouldn't default to wounding, it's up to the warrior to pay attention and react to the situation. You already have bal-free assess to know wounds, you don't need to know the afflictions or have the game give it to you.
Edit: it's simply my opinion, the admin may disagree, but then it should be uniform across the board, not just with warriors.
Also, having played around a little in the arena, I'm leaning toward not making an affliction-attack default to wounds if the target already has the affliction, because that's actually going to be a nerf in some cases. Specifically, legtendon stuns as well as gives mutilatedleg, and doing it on a leg already mutilated will still give the stun. Making it go back to a vanilla attack... won't. Probably not a good idea.
It's clear that tracking which affliction your target has will be easier for a person than a computer to recognize. So yeah, it's not a good suggestion. As it is, highlighting the current messages should be sufficient. Amazing what you learn when you have someone to spend time in the arena with you :-) Thanks again @Lerad
So while messing around I think we identified 3 issues. 1. Blademasters don't do enough bleeding damage, even with internalbleding affliction to seriously be able to kill someone with it. I think the easiest solution would be to increase bleeding with overall wound levels.
2. Without the poisons being converted to the overhaul afflictions it's hard to know if ice balance needs to be lowered.
3. Haymaker needs to be adjusted. It's too risky and not enough benefit. After throwing some ideas around, the one we liked best as a starting point is that haymaker gives one wound and the light wounds affliction to everybody part. Still blockable by parry. It works nicely because the blademaster actually has an affliction for each body part at the light wounds level. It's effectively 14 seconds of curing delay for 10 power and ~6ish seconds.
I played around with adding forging runes, nightkiss and being Igasho. It made each attack roughly 3.1 seconds.
Remiss is a handy skill when timed nicely. It would be nicer if after spending power you didn't also have to waste ~2 seconds waiting for it to line up with your next attack. Giving it the same delay as your balance recovery time would be nice.
One combo seems to do between 400-600 damage, and I'm not sure that's enough damage even with damage boosting abilities. (Unless of course the damage boosting abilities do something like 300% damage, but that seems unreasonable to assume)
I'm reluctant to say anything as far as damage and bleeding goes should be adjusted yet because as @Ieptix mentioned earlier in this thread, it's not 100% implemented and there are still things coming that will interfere with current mechanics. We shouldn't be adjusting numbers based on a partial view.
Once everything is implemented and functioning as it should be, the dirty details can be hammered out.
Even without knowing what the future skills might be I think it's worth mentioning, and it's certainly worth discussing what an appropriate amount of damage is.
For example, the only way I could see further skills making the damage acceptable would be if it multiplied the current damage by a number greater than 2. However, I also think that if a skill did that, it would be a very dangerous skill, possibly creating too large of a number with damage buffs or other outside the class modifiers.
So sure, discussing if the damage should be 500 or 550 at this point would be a bad idea, but I think the question should be more along the lines of: When skills get added, should the damage be in the range of 800, 1000, or 2000 and can we make sure that no skill is going to do more than add 30% to the basic damage range... Or other similar ideas.
But how can you make an educated answer to what the damage should be without knowing all the factors? Why not make one adjustment to damage when the entire picture is in place rather than multiple minor adjustments prior that may have to be changed back?
You can't possibly know what an 'appropiate amount of damage' is unless you know everything the warrior is capable of.
You're asking to give a customer the price before you know how much it costs you to make.
Btw Ieptix already said that not all skills in BM have been coded in and I definitely proposed a passive that will increase damage depending on certain factors.
Haymaker is meant to be a quick burst of wounds/damage, with the potential for poisons on top. Specifically, with the effects I mentioned in the first paragraph, a haymaker on an afflicted opponent will have a good chance of doing a large chunk of damage.
Regarding damage specifically, this is very likely to be one of the things that'll need the most fine-tuning to get to a good spot, so I'm very much interested in feedback regarding where damage levels sit.
Comments
If the runes and stances work as I think, they do then it might bring the strike to below 3 seconds anyway. ( I didn't realize those things would still have an impact)
Warriors have always had better defences and more health than casters, as well as quicker attacks. Would be a shame to nerf them without a warning to the general public if people still rely on that.
Warriors were often bashing on the assumption that they could hit in less than 3 seconds. (Often just 2.5 seconds). As long as the change is made clear, and doesn't surprise anyone it should be fine. The damage output of weapons will be adjusted to make it equitable, I'm sure
- Having afflictions that delay cure balance and delayed cures on those skills means they are put behind almost instantly. Specifically I am requesting more concise information on
- I think I understand the question. Assuming parry does not happen and I target your chest and spam, where do we end up? At 3.5s an attack you do 2 wounds as any spec base or 1 wound per 1.75s. You will outpace applications, more so if you have to cure even a single affliction. So poisons will put you behind rapidly. Power attacks will mess this up more. Stuns will further worsen this issue.
It seems to not be counting Sickening as an internal affliction, and not counting either weakenedleg or slitthroat as an external affliction.
edit: When it does go through, it's really cool.
You drive a heavy longsword deep into Renthur's torso before drawing the blade up and out through
his mutilated chest. Ribs crack audibly as blood and bile spill forth from the wound, forming a
puddle of gore about his internal organs as the viscera slides to the floor with a sickening squish.
Renthur's corpse collapses, dead in a matter of agonizing seconds.
2. Why is the command OHSTRIKE DAGANEV LLEG PIERCELEG doing wounds?
Does this mean that as a player, I can use the attack of the affliction I want to give until they build up enough wounds to actually do it, and I don't have to create aliases for power-free, non affliction wound building? *hope*
If it remains to be the case that if the target has the pre-reqs and the affliction that doing the attack does nothing, then I will code the following into my attack alias:
Say my alias is "weakenlleg":
if (target_has_lleg_limp) {
(razing code)
strike @target lleg
} else {
(razing code)
strike @target lleg pierceleg
}
Then I have another alias "mutilatelleg"
if (target_has_llelg_mutilated) {
(razing code)
strike @target lleg
} else {
(razing code)
strike @target lleg legtendon
}
If already having the pre-req and having the affliction defaults to a basic targeted strike, then I'll only need the following alias:
"weakenlleg"
(razing code)
strike @target lleg pierceleg
"mutilatelleg"
(razing code)
strike @target lleg legtendon
I'm not so certain that the first set of code adds a compelling level of complexity, other than a "code tax". Or is there some means to hide what you cure, or a desired strategy in timing your cures to heal between the time the attacker enters the command and lands the blow?
If its fully trackable with messages, that means it is ultimately a code requirement for a warrior system, rather than a player's grasp of the combat situation. If eventually, those who are well connected are going to have the advanced code, it seems better for Lusternia to make that code default from the get go.
If it's not fully trackable, then that means there is some intent for the warrior to "guess", and that becomes part of the balance. And the code should not be defaulting to wounds when the affliction already hit.
So while messing around I think we identified 3 issues.
1. Blademasters don't do enough bleeding damage, even with internalbleding affliction to seriously be able to kill someone with it. I think the easiest solution would be to increase bleeding with overall wound levels.
2. Without the poisons being converted to the overhaul afflictions it's hard to know if ice balance needs to be lowered.
3. Haymaker needs to be adjusted. It's too risky and not enough benefit. After throwing some ideas around, the one we liked best as a starting point is that haymaker gives one wound and the light wounds affliction to everybody part. Still blockable by parry. It works nicely because the blademaster actually has an affliction for each body part at the light wounds level. It's effectively 14 seconds of curing delay for 10 power and ~6ish seconds.
I played around with adding forging runes, nightkiss and being Igasho. It made each attack roughly 3.1 seconds.
Remiss is a handy skill when timed nicely. It would be nicer if after spending power you didn't also have to waste ~2 seconds waiting for it to line up with your next attack. Giving it the same delay as your balance recovery time would be nice.
One combo seems to do between 400-600 damage, and I'm not sure that's enough damage even with damage boosting abilities. (Unless of course the damage boosting abilities do something like 300% damage, but that seems unreasonable to assume)
For example, the only way I could see further skills making the damage acceptable would be if it multiplied the current damage by a number greater than 2. However, I also think that if a skill did that, it would be a very dangerous skill, possibly creating too large of a number with damage buffs or other outside the class modifiers.
So sure, discussing if the damage should be 500 or 550 at this point would be a bad idea, but I think the question should be more along the lines of: When skills get added, should the damage be in the range of 800, 1000, or 2000 and can we make sure that no skill is going to do more than add 30% to the basic damage range... Or other similar ideas.