I agree, nerf shields, block and mono's please, too powerful.
Oh my, I just can't imagine any situations in which you might not be shielded, someone might disrupt your block, or anyone could possibly pick up a dropped monolith. Not a single one! That's why no one ever uses bonds, because it does nothing they're already doing.
But really. If bonds did nothing that was not already so easily done, there would obviously be no use in spending the power and no one would. Yet, bonds is commonly used, because it acts as if you have all of those blocking methods up at once, constantly with no chance of error and in a much more difficult to disrupt manner. In a standoff between a group with bonds and a group with no bonds, there are several ways to work around blocks/monos/shields. These can include using ranged shield strippers, ranged or in-room mono picking up (and immediately empressing the thief, for example), or as you've suggested - just sending someone in for everyone to attack, dropping their shield. The bonds side isn't vulnerable to that. You walk in and steal their mono, nope still protected (And the thief can't be empressed out). You walk in and everyone breaks shield to hit you, nope still protected. You move the blocking people, nope still protected. The techniques open to the bonded group for disrupting the non-bonds turtle aren't open in return to the non-bonds group, short of full on bum-rushing engage.
Completely disregarding physical movement skills, one of the most powerful in your skillset because of how quickly it allows the Stag user to recover. Again, this argument sounds compelling and would indeed be the case if physical movement summons didn't exist at all. Alas, they do and you've completely forgotten about them in this argument.
Reality is a (slightly) stronger version of static field because it doesn't rely on breaking a charge only on the user's room, and (compared to staticfield's 1 hr cooldown and dramatically decreasing proc chance over that 1hr) can be spammed more frequently. It also can scatter combat that's already been engaged, which static field cannot do. Really, they work in pretty fundamentally different ways, but static field was already being compared to bonds, with which is shares even less.
Arguing that Reality is somehow better than Staticfield makes me believe that you honestly lack a lot of perspective or you're intentionally being partisan. They're both great skills, but Reality is short-lived and backfires against the caster and their forces. Whereas Staticfield is enemy targets only and has a chance of throwing attackers out (which would be incredibly powerful just by itself). However, it also has a chance of throwing people out when they just walk in. To disregard how powerful this is when one of the core concepts to being successful in group combat is splitting up the other group and you can do this passively with a one hour defense? There's really no contest here.
My responses are bolded.
Personally, I just adore how we seem to have an annual hate on Night as a skillset. If it's not Choke, it's Gloomtide, then it's Longnight, then it's Bonds. Eventually, if you keep having to find stuff to downgrade and one side is being successful regardless, you're going to have to come to the conclusion that it's not the skills themselves, but rather the skills of the players behind them.
I agree, nerf shields, block and mono's please, too powerful.
Oh my, I just can't imagine any situations in which you might not be shielded, someone might disrupt your block, or anyone could possibly pick up a dropped monolith. Not a single one! That's why no one ever uses bonds, because it does nothing they're already doing.
I read the first line in this post and I have made it no further. What I have flashing through my mind is: "Oh my, I just can't imagine any situations in which a eq-free balance-free vines is more powerful in terms of a Druid than a one-time 35% Invoke Circle shield is against said Druid." Perhaps you should be a little less sarcastic about things if you want people to actually spend any time considering what you write, when it's already so easy to dismiss based on your other thoughts on combat balance.
If you actually want a discussion, then by all means; when you're doing things like this, though, you're not looking for a discussion. You just want a venue to complain about Yet Another Thing, and I'm a bit tired of it.
No, I haven't forgotten about headbutt. Headbutt doesn't work on shielded targets, and with bonds there is one person in your group who can remain shielded and still contribute dramatically. The point still stands: the non-bonds group are all vulnerable to being headbutted or gusted AND all of the other methods if they aren't shielded. The bonds group is ONLY vulnerable to headbutt (and gust), at much higher risk to the guster and with all of the methods previously mentioned regarding turtling (plus some unique to the bonded room, like brume).The argument that headbutt counters bonds sounds compelling, but really isn't when you look at it. I also have no idea what you're talking about RE: faster recovery. My headbutt balance time is longer than pointing gust. Recheck your facts?
Reality also has a chance of throwing people out when they just walk in (plus when they walk out), actually! That's part of what makes it really powerful, it can scatter a group and disrupt their attempts to regroup in the same spot. And doesn't NEED to be cast in a room with your targets/allies. Cast it one room away! If you get bumrushed, some of the enemies will get scattered before they enter your room, either when they enter the reality-d room or when they leave it to enter your room. Static field also does nothing to people already in the room when cast, unless they directly attack the aerochem, and the chance for it to fire falls off substantially as the hour goes on.
I...what. The aerochem needs to be a priority target. If you can't see the reason for this, especially considering the aerochem's time bombs + passive asthma (with an organization that has access to passive aeon), then there's really no more reason to continue arguing with you.
Re: Reality
You know, it's not that hard to set a new rally point where Reality isn't cast.
As the only Igasho on our side who uses carry as much as possible I can attest to the fact that entering a bonded room is suicide, even ambush carrying 7 out of 10 times ends up with me in a pit. If I am not a Tracker, which I only just switched back to today after a week of being Moon and Stag then it is 9 out of 10 times that it is suicide. Kelly/Kaimanahi(sp?) makes extensive use of tackle and even she, after being noted by the "South", said that it is suicide, I can't say what her success rate is only my own, but really trying to state tackle/carry is a counter to bonds is way off the mark.
If the room is bonded you already know someone will come in and you are ready for it. Trying to compare bonds to shields is ridiculous as well. Maybe it would be the same thing if one person shielding shielded everyone in the room.
If bonds was not so powerful, and note I did not say overpowered, it would not be used as heavily as it is. Not if "shield does everything bonds does"
I get the whole "You just want to nerf us cause you can't deal with it argument", and maybe there is a solid foundation there, but really some of the people if not most in this discussion are supposed to be envoys. The vitriol spewed when discussing game balance really makes me wonder about the game's future if it is in the hands of these people.
Until reality pushes you into a quest area e_e Chems should never be your focus, least of all an aerochem, not unless you can drop them instantly. I'm pretty sure I'd 100% focus the Celestine/Moonie/Researcher merely due to manakillers and aeonspam, if the melder isn't present. All manakillers must die.
Edit: I don't remember when but there was a domoth scuffle on Frosty not long ago and reality pushed me off into the quest area and I was like 'omg I have to save my team' and I proceeded to empress Kaimanahi and -EVERYONE ELSE- into the quest area, completely ruining everything but it was fine, it was fine.
(I'm the mom of Hallifax btw, so if you are in Hallifax please call me mom.)
== Professional Girl Gamer == Yes I play games Yes I'm a girl get over it
Tip: No one in the north has said it's not good or useful. There have been a couple of attempts by some to misrepresent your opposition as stating it's "not powerful," when what they've mostly been doing is rebuking that it's "OP" (per Maligorn) or some type of unstoppable fortress. Which is not the same thing.
Tip2: Calling people vitriolic just for disagreeing with you doesn't lend credibility to your position. There is no malice, people just don't see it your way. Calling people vitriolic, especially when they are not, is just as bad as being vitriolic.
Night is the Hillary Clinton of Lusternia skills. Actually pretty great at its job, but subject to unfair, often absurd criticisms by the people who oppose it. Bonds is great, so is brume. You still have to be careful how you use them.
Tip: No one in the north has said it's not good or useful. There have been a couple of attempts by some to misrepresent your opposition as stating it's "not powerful," when what they've mostly been doing is rebuking that it's "OP" (per Maligorn) or some type of unstoppable fortress. Which is not the same thing.
What? You mean in the South? Because @Synkarin did, he said that it was just the same as having shield/mono/blockers, which is what I was responding to.
Tip: No one in the north has said it's not good or useful. There have been a couple of attempts by some to misrepresent your opposition as stating it's "not powerful," when what they've mostly been doing is rebuking that it's "OP" (per Maligorn) or some type of unstoppable fortress. Which is not the same thing.
What? You mean in the South? Because @Synkarin did, he said that it was just the same as having shield/mono/blockers, which is what I was responding to.
He definitely never said it wasn't good or useful. He equated it to multiple items/skills. Let's not put words in people's mouths (again).
If you think chem bombs are anything to worry about, or that a single target asthma on a 10s timer is enough to warrant priority targeting then uh... I guess keep going and maybe we'll get lucky with the static procs.
Can anyone confirm that gust is not stopped by bonds, by the way? I know it was changed to physical once upon a time, but unsure if it stopped being affected by bonds.
Tip: No one in the north has said it's not good or useful. There have been a couple of attempts by some to misrepresent your opposition as stating it's "not powerful," when what they've mostly been doing is rebuking that it's "OP" (per Maligorn) or some type of unstoppable fortress. Which is not the same thing.
What? You mean in the South? Because @Synkarin did, he said that it was just the same as having shield/mono/blockers, which is what I was responding to.
He definitely never said it wasn't good or useful. He equated it to multiple items/skills. Let's not put words in people's mouths (again).
I never said he said itwasn't good or useful either, so uh.. what? Let's not put words in people's mouths (again).
He specifically said that (quoting, emphasis mine) "Anything that bonds accomplishes is easily accomplished without bonds". Untrue. If that were true, no one would have any reason to use bonds (as I elaborated in my post). It definitely does accomplish something above and beyond those multiple items/skills.
In context, saying "Bonds is okay because it does 'the same thing as xyz that you have too'" is functionally the same as saying that it's not [more] useful [than xyz] , but that's besides the point. I only addressed what was actually said, that anything bonds does can be done with other techniques.
Gust, beast gust, beckon, chaindrag, scissorflip, tackle, springtraps (and any other physical movement skills) should not be stopped by Bonds. But it looks like it could be bugged.
-- technically, treelife/treebane/raise cudgel are also not stopped by Bonds, but Brumetower exists, so.
Meanwhile, magical movement, including empress, summon, wisp, and Crow squall should all be stopped by it.
You know what I'm not sure about, Transmoloy Sing (throat feathers mod) and Reality. I'm hinging yes to the first and no to the second, but I can test later when I can log in.
Hey, since staticfield was brought up and I thought about it a little, it's a pretty good counter to bonds. Don't even need prismatic. You activate it, walk into a bonds/pitted/melded room... and see everyone get pushed out of bonds just by attacking you - if they weren't already scattered by your entry. Don't even need to rad. Haha.
In all seriousness, though, reading through the circular arguments about bonds in this thread has helped me understand why it is so controversial. Making sense of bonds is not actually that difficult - making sense of the arguments is the hard part. Let me try to summarize.
First of all, bonds is a more "powerful" version of shield/mono/blocks because it is a passive, room-based version of it... let's ignore the subjectivity of the word "powerful" there for a moment; at least the other parts are things everyone in this thread have a general consensus about. I mean, we could spend days debating the semantic implications of Sidd's choice of words and try to paint him as downplaying the ability (with you arguing he is saying otherwise, and me arguing he isn't etc), but I'd personally rather spend my time on something more productive. Bonds obviously gives an advantage to using it over the abilities it replicates, because otherwise, it doesn't need to exist as a skill, right? Actually, that's not true, there are plenty of skills that are downright downgrades to other abilities, or limited forms of others - or just plain replicas. They exist. Obviously, though, bonds isn't one of them. It is replicates the effects of shield/mono/blocks, and adds an additional layer of protection on top of it by virtue of being one skill.
This extra layer of protection, however, doesn't come with no trade-off. As mentioned above, there are abilities out there that are straight upgrades of other existing abilities, and have no other drawback (healing's cleanse clone, druidry's clinging upgrades, ascendant destruction, crow caw over totems caw etc) - bonds isn't one of them. Bonds drawbacks have been listed almost exhaustively in the first few pages of the thread, so the fact that there is a trade-off isn't in doubt. What is being debated here is whether these drawbacks are drawbacks - those who are fighting against bonds are quite obviously putting forth arguments that the mechanical disadvantages of bonds is somehow negligible or unjustified.
The reason for this is fairly simple: When used properly, bonds blocks out certain strategies and tactics - not abilities. Similarly, the drawbacks of bonds gives higher risk to certain strategies and tactics - not abilities. This is one reason why direct comparisons of skills (like the one I just did in my first paragraph in this post with staticfield) usually comes out to be lacking of the perspective needed to weigh its pros and cons. Another reason is of course the fact that strategies and tactics are subjectively assessed in terms of their effectiveness. Not everyone likes certain strategies - so a skill that affects strategies will be deemed as more powerful, or less, according to the perceiver's opinions.
For example, I personally feel bum-rushing engages are always preferable to sitting and waiting. I have led my team to death more times than I want to remember because my bias tends to make me assess strategical situations in a way that the bum-rushing option always gets tinted in a more optimistic manner. This specific example is directly relatable to the ongoing debate about bonds, because that's actually what it actually boosts: the advantage of bum-rushing. In certain situations, the presence of bonds disadvantages the option of turtling for those fighting against it. You can still try to turtle against bonds, but it simply isn't as effective anymore - it incentivizes rushing into the bonds room to try and dislodge the defenders while punishing the alternate choice. This allows the bonds using team to prioritize strategies and tactics that provide advantage in such situations.
In Lusternia's group combat climate, numbers trump almost everything. Smaller, more effective tactics can be brute-forced aside, though, of course, that's not true all the time. We've had many fights where a smaller group could split and wipe a larger group. Certain abilities can make this easier - fearaura, staticfield, squall, scissorflip into pits, stoneflesh or illusorymaze, etc. But generally speaking, numbers do translate to hard advantage. What bonds does is that it makes the choice of fortressing up viable for smaller groups. Where a straight stare-down between two groups can be bruteforced by the bigger group having more pullers/radders/scissorflippers etc, bonds gives smaller groups the breathing space to make the bigger group come to them by simply making the pull game not effective.
Naturally, a bigger group that chooses to use bonds defensively will simply solidify that advantage - it forces the ball to be in the court of the other player: they have to hit it, or forfeit the point.
As one who prefers engaging and breaking (before my opponents entrench themselves, if possible, of course) the defensive use of bonds provides a risk that is rarely justified in my books. Especially if the opposing team is at a numbers disadvantage, rushing them before they can set up defenses is the better choice. This is even more true when you remember that bonds incentivizes rushing over fortressing by putting the defending melder at risk of a straight up walk in and damage spam to death scenario. We've rushed Avurekhos to death by doing that before, and he has honed his survivability and slipperiness to an art form. And that was without bonds, too. The viability of that is all the greater when the melder being targeted is sitting in bonds. Additionally, there are many abilities that can split the enemy team in a straight rush, but from my perspective, I have access to less of them than my opponents. I have scissor and squall, and then after that, fearaura. And that's about it. I mean, I guess I should put in reality as well, but dropping reality in a room I'm trying to rush into is probably an option I'll only take if I'm outnumbered two to one or something like that (and even then, probably rarely worth the risk of reducing my own team) - statistically, it doesn't really make sense to reality a room if I'm rushing in with superior numbers... but well, at least I mention it here, I suppose.
The above paragraph was a slight digression - it was a personal analysis of my own bias in favouring rushes when I am in a position to make the call. And that is the reason why the advantage of bonds - in enabling a strategy I don't see as particularly useful in certain situations - does not translate to worth the risk in using it - since it also enables the effectiveness of that same strategy on myself. This is not some imaginary risk, too - I've never rushed an enemy team with Crek in my entourage. He always walks in to break after we draw aggro and start tying Avurekhos (or the enemy melder) up - and the resulting confusion in targeting is probably more effective in giving Crek survivability than any mechanical ability. As the defending team, your melder is the one at risk of such a tactic - and unless you're confident your team backs you up by calling out the enemy meld breaker to refocus attacks when he sneaks in, you're at a disadvantage - one that you risk exacerbating when you use bonds.
In my perspective: holding the numbers advantage means = rush them. Sitting and waiting for them to rush can definitely backfire if the room I'm in isn't a secure, unbreakable room - and even if it is, it's not a choice I would willingly make when I have the numerical advantage. If I have a smaller team, bonds gives me the option of actually fortressing up without needing to worry about being bruteforced aside by superior numbers of rad-slingers or beckoners, but the risk of being rushed by a larger team, while my melder sits in bonds, is a very real, and a very scary prospect.
This kind of weighing of strategical concerns is, as mentioned, a subjective excercise - and if you personally prefer not to rush, it's probably not my place to insist you should (though I do want to). But I don't think it's accurate to say that there is no counter to bonds.
P.S. - Raeri makes great use of Igasho carry. When he is around, my waylay is permanently prioritized on him, even above the enemy melder. You can ask him how he does it, but it's definitely danger
@Enyalida - I clearly stated why people use bonds. It doesn't negate the fact that you don't need bonds to replicate bonds effect. You have yet to really make an argument that refutes this claim. Sure shields can be broken (only by one skill ranged* that I can think of btw, but it involves the person actually jumping in the room still, not sure what other skills you think can strip shield from range). You can always flame mono's or re-mono etc. The funny thing is that everything you're saying should be done can be done in similar fashion against bonds. I guess it's just OP because you have to fight against it, but it's legit strategy when you use it.
*@Yarith pointed out scorpionstrike raze as well, but that falls into the 'have to jump into the room to actually do' category as well. Meldbombs and phantomspheres if you aren't breaking your turtle room I guess (but that's super situational to even consider). I don't really think people in general have the ability to strip shields from a distance.
Hey, since staticfield was brought up and I thought about it a little, it's a pretty good counter to bonds. Don't even need prismatic. You activate it, walk into a bonds/pitted/melded room... and see everyone get pushed out of bonds just by attacking you - if they weren't already scattered by your entry. Don't even need to rad. Haha.
I've already covered this. Static field has a chance to proc when enemies enter the room and not when you enter the room. That -would- be broken. The chance to proc is also so low that in a pit meld fortress you're unlikely to proc it more than once or twice before you are dead without even taking into account rooting.
I'm curious what the proc chance is. The few times I've made a point to pay attention to it, it seemed like I got bounced out of the room consistently enough to disrupt me. I don't think it's that low, but my evidence is anecdotal.
I'm curious what the proc chance is. The few times I've made a point to pay attention to it, it seemed like I got bounced out of the room consistently enough to disrupt me. I don't think it's that low, but my evidence is anecdotal.
Unfortunately it is pretty hard to test. It starts off fairly high but by the end of the hour it's very low. Our best bet is really for Ieptix or someone other admin to come out and tell us exactly how it works.
Static field should be a focused skill, whereas you have to stand still for it to work. The idea that you can snatch up a wildnode/chaos hamster/quest item and be virtually untouchable as you run around is bonkers.
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.
REPORT 1101. Was part of the special report on Aerochem.
On release it was absolutely nuts, with 6s stuns and very high rate of firing, but I believe they did go with a change similar to the ones suggested by myself and Vadi in the comments of that report.
It's been a while but IIRC I don't believe there is any stun longer than 3s, the changes in stun lengths were 0.5/10min or so, and the firing rates were tweaked at both ends, but forget what they worked out as being reduced to.
<Obligatory bonds/veil/brume should be a focused skill retort.>
Even if it was, people would still complain.
After a long time in IRE, I've generally come to the conclusion that people on opposing sides aren't happy unless the other side has nothing that is competitive or threatens them on the regular. If the counterplay for something requires an unreasonable amount of effort to play against, you may have an argument that it's imbalanced. If it just annoys you, frustrates you, or evokes discussion like this, there's a strong chance that it's just a competitively powerful ability and working as intended.
Edit: It's specifically why, despite my dislike for Staticfield, I'm not necessarily rushing out to call it overpowered. It's a trans skill, has counterplay, and isn't guaranteed. Hallifax has other things higher on my list that I think are legitimately too powerful, but that's a separate discussion. As per Bonds, the ability is fine. Counters exist, they just run contrary to the combat mentality currently employed by a lot of people in the north. @Xenthos and @Lerad both summed up my feelings pretty well.
Comments
My responses are bolded.
Personally, I just adore how we seem to have an annual hate on Night as a skillset. If it's not Choke, it's Gloomtide, then it's Longnight, then it's Bonds. Eventually, if you keep having to find stuff to downgrade and one side is being successful regardless, you're going to have to come to the conclusion that it's not the skills themselves, but rather the skills of the players behind them.
I read the first line in this post and I have made it no further. What I have flashing through my mind is: "Oh my, I just can't imagine any situations in which a eq-free balance-free vines is more powerful in terms of a Druid than a one-time 35% Invoke Circle shield is against said Druid." Perhaps you should be a little less sarcastic about things if you want people to actually spend any time considering what you write, when it's already so easy to dismiss based on your other thoughts on combat balance.
If you actually want a discussion, then by all means; when you're doing things like this, though, you're not looking for a discussion. You just want a venue to complain about Yet Another Thing, and I'm a bit tired of it.
Ieptix, if you can delete Hallifax from history surely you can make this happen!
If the room is bonded you already know someone will come in and you are ready for it. Trying to compare bonds to shields is ridiculous as well. Maybe it would be the same thing if one person shielding shielded everyone in the room.
If bonds was not so powerful, and note I did not say overpowered, it would not be used as heavily as it is. Not if "shield does everything bonds does"
I get the whole "You just want to nerf us cause you can't deal with it argument", and maybe there is a solid foundation there, but really some of the people if not most in this discussion are supposed to be envoys. The vitriol spewed when discussing game balance really makes me wonder about the game's future if it is in the hands of these people.
Chems should never be your focus, least of all an aerochem, not unless you can drop them instantly. I'm pretty sure I'd 100% focus the Celestine/Moonie/Researcher merely due to manakillers and aeonspam, if the melder isn't present. All manakillers must die.
Edit: I don't remember when but there was a domoth scuffle on Frosty not long ago and reality pushed me off into the quest area and I was like 'omg I have to save my team' and I proceeded to empress Kaimanahi and -EVERYONE ELSE- into the quest area, completely ruining everything but it was fine, it was fine.
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
I've already covered this. Static field has a chance to proc when enemies enter the room and not when you enter the room. That -would- be broken. The chance to proc is also so low that in a pit meld fortress you're unlikely to proc it more than once or twice before you are dead without even taking into account rooting.
== Professional Girl Gamer ==
Yes I play games
Yes I'm a girl
get over it
On release it was absolutely nuts, with 6s stuns and very high rate of firing, but I believe they did go with a change similar to the ones suggested by myself and Vadi in the comments of that report.
It's been a while but IIRC I don't believe there is any stun longer than 3s, the changes in stun lengths were 0.5/10min or so, and the firing rates were tweaked at both ends, but forget what they worked out as being reduced to.
Still is a nice survival ability for aerochems.
After a long time in IRE, I've generally come to the conclusion that people on opposing sides aren't happy unless the other side has nothing that is competitive or threatens them on the regular. If the counterplay for something requires an unreasonable amount of effort to play against, you may have an argument that it's imbalanced. If it just annoys you, frustrates you, or evokes discussion like this, there's a strong chance that it's just a competitively powerful ability and working as intended.
Edit: It's specifically why, despite my dislike for Staticfield, I'm not necessarily rushing out to call it overpowered. It's a trans skill, has counterplay, and isn't guaranteed. Hallifax has other things higher on my list that I think are legitimately too powerful, but that's a separate discussion. As per Bonds, the ability is fine. Counters exist, they just run contrary to the combat mentality currently employed by a lot of people in the north. @Xenthos and @Lerad both summed up my feelings pretty well.