(I'm a huuuuge fan of all orgs having access to exactly the same tools. I could finally get on board with Lusternian PvP then!)
Pros: Makes combat easier to balance. Reduces the need for people to understand the classes of other orgs in order to git gud at pk. Cons: Reduces combat to a numbers/artifacts game primarily, with less need to work out combinations of skills or strategies(I mean, that wouldn't be entirely true, but it would take out a lot of unusual combinations and options). Removes rp-flavour of some skills(different messages, same effect still = less uniqueness)
Balancing is hard, sure. But why would mirrored skillsets be an incentive to get into pvp? I strongly believe it would make it less interesting.
4: Change meld-wide scarab because that's actually insane. Two minutes plus of periodic uncurable anorexia/slitthroat for 2p as listed, seriously.
I figured you meant you wanted to mirror stuff across sides, like mag/cel, not across all six. If you do want to mirror absolutely everything across all six that's... I mean, it does make sense. It's just a touch boring.
Yeah, I want to know more about how scarab is going to work in BT meld now because the effect as described seems to be a one-way ticket to instant murder.
I'm in favour of mirroring skills across all 6 because mirroring opposite pairs, i.e. Mag/Celest only works if we assume "opposites" are never going to be allied, and we can't be sure of that. Just imagine what it would be like if only Seren and Glom had manakills, for example, and then they allied with each other.
(clan): Falmiis says, "Aramelise, verb, 1. adorn with many flowers."
4: Change meld-wide scarab because that's actually insane. Two minutes plus of periodic uncurable anorexia/slitthroat for 2p as listed, seriously.
I figured you meant you wanted to mirror stuff across sides, like mag/cel, not across all six. If you do want to mirror absolutely everything across all six that's... I mean, it does make sense. It's just a touch boring.
Yeah, I want to know more about how scarab is going to work in BT meld now because the effect as described seems to be a one-way ticket to instant murder.
I'm in favour of mirroring skills across all 6 because mirroring opposite pairs, i.e. Mag/Celest only works if we assume "opposites" are never going to be allied, and we can't be sure of that. Just imagine what it would be like if only Seren and Glom had manakills, for example, and then they allied with each other.
Yeah, this is the biggest issue with not doing mirrored skillsets, to be sure. I'm just more in favor of dealing with the specifics of how certain combinations are broken, and adjust skills for that. Maybe that means there's a penalty for Moondancers/Shadowdancers working together, or Nihilists/Celestines. I think non-mirrored skills can work, so long as everything is equivalent in some way.
(I'm a huuuuge fan of all orgs having access to exactly the same tools. I could finally get on board with Lusternian PvP then!)
Pros: Makes combat easier to balance. Reduces the need for people to understand the classes of other orgs in order to git gud at pk. Cons: Reduces combat to a numbers/artifacts game primarily, with less need to work out combinations of skills or strategies(I mean, that wouldn't be entirely true, but it would take out a lot of unusual combinations and options). Removes rp-flavour of some skills(different messages, same effect still = less uniqueness)
Balancing is hard, sure. But why would mirrored skillsets be an incentive to get into pvp? I strongly believe it would make it less interesting.
Eh, it's only partially about balance. I mean, yes, balancing is easier with mirrored skills. I don't agree that reducing combat to a numbers/tactics game is a bad thing though. Whoever uses the abilities best is true competition. To get to that point, you first need to give equal access to those abilities to all parties.
Every other competition gives equal access to resources to both sides. Soccer? Football? Dota? Overwatch? MTG? Go? I can't think of a serious competition where you simply have access to tools that your opponents do not... because... then it's not really a competition.
Maybe that's a personal definition thing, but that's why I can't really take Lusternia combat seriously. If characters were more fluid, ie. like an MMO where your artifacts are tied to your account and shared across your characters, then you could make an argument. Otherwise I firmly put Lusternia in the 'not a competitive game, but played competitively for some reason'-camp.
That's also why I'm pleased by the general direction Orael took on the design here. I'd mirror the abilities even harder, especially since things like anorexia vs. entangle interact so differently within the game.
The way scarab is 'described' on the spreadsheet can cause confusion, but it works like the other effects that have three power costs. 2p is single target, 5p is room wide, and 8p is meld wide, with single target activating more frequently. There are a slew of issues I draw with some of the meld effects, and of course, their building affs. You're telling me that at level 4 of that aff my offense is so screwed at -10/-10 that I might as not just take the hands off the keyboard, because you have prone flag, no celerity to move with and that -10 malus to bal/eq.
Please to be changing swarming to another name? We already have a guild called Swarm.
I'm fine with room/meld wide scarab effect being changed (Maybe two or three delayed balance/curative knocks + damage rather than random temporary incurable anorexia/slitthroat. Just spitballing here.) and increasing the single target power cost OR reducing duration.
For transparency current numbers: Scarab lasts ~60 seconds. Did 657 health damage against a 10400 health target. 785 health damage against a 12420 health target. Damage happens on spit out, not during anorexia effect. Anorexia effects lasted ~two seconds each tic. First tic is two seconds after cast. Then appears to vary anywhere from ten seconds to seven seconds.
The Divine voice of Ianir the Anomaly echoes in your head, "You are a ray of sunshine in a sea of
Eh, it's only partially about balance. I mean, yes, balancing is easier with mirrored skills. I don't agree that reducing combat to a numbers/tactics game is a bad thing though. Whoever uses the abilities best is true competition. To get to that point, you first need to give equal access to those abilities to all parties.
Numbers/Artifacts is what I said, actually. IMO, tactics opportunities are reduced the more you mirror skills. The purpose of having different skills is to be able to use them in different - but theoretically equally damaging - ways. This equal access argument... I feel like we're talking about two different things, because:
Every other competition gives equal access to resources to both sides. Soccer? Football? Dota? Overwatch? MTG? Go? I can't think of a serious competition where you simply have access to tools that your opponents do not... because... then it's not really a competition.
We do have equal access to resources. If I wanted to play a pyromancer, I could create a character in Gaudiguch. The problem is that if in any given fight, Aquamancer > Pyromancer, then that isn't balanced. If sometimes pyromancer is better for some tactics/situations and sometimes aquamancer is better for others, then they might be. I'm all in favor of equal access to *effectiveness*. I think of it more as a competitive card game: Yes, any player can choose any card. But certain combinations will work better than others, and in any single game, you won't have access to the same cards as everyone else. So, your chances of winning will vary - but there should still be enough variation to the cards and how it's played that good strategy can overcome drawing a bad hand (most of the time).
Huh, apparently it is only a minute. That's weird, I guess my math was just way the hell off the last time I checked it? For some reason I had 140 seconds in memory. I don't really have any particular care about the damage and honestly had forgotten it existed(although it's just a little weird that it's unblockable? It's really not important though). For single target I'd personally prefer to move it to just one cure blocked instead of dust, slush, elixirs, and herbs (maybe just dust? both WW and SD lean into it pretty hard, and I think BT does too, plus slitthroat doesn't to my knowledge exist outside of warrior/monk) and cut the duration way down, especially at 2p. Darkseed's only three ticks of entangle, but it's also just way overcosted at 7p right now so looking to that as a balancing point is probably not ideal. I do think changing it to a cure knock (either just for group or for both) would be potentially good, but if it's changed to only a dust block that's not really any difference (or actually it's slightly worse, since with a block you can still do stuff like sixthsense to cure blind but you can't do that with a knock).
Re: changing off swarm, if that's not liked, how's infestation?
Eh, it's only partially about balance. I mean, yes, balancing is easier with mirrored skills. I don't agree that reducing combat to a numbers/tactics game is a bad thing though. Whoever uses the abilities best is true competition. To get to that point, you first need to give equal access to those abilities to all parties.
Every other competition gives equal access to resources to both sides. Soccer? Football? Dota? Overwatch? MTG? Go? I can't think of a serious competition where you simply have access to tools that your opponents do not... because... then it's not really a competition.
Maybe that's a personal definition thing, but that's why I can't really take Lusternia combat seriously. If characters were more fluid, ie. like an MMO where your artifacts are tied to your account and shared across your characters, then you could make an argument. Otherwise I firmly put Lusternia in the 'not a competitive game, but played competitively for some reason'-camp.
That's also why I'm pleased by the general direction Orael took on the design here. I'd mirror the abilities even harder, especially since things like anorexia vs. entangle interact so differently within the game.
I'd say the lack of real structure is a bigger reason that I'd say Lusternia isn't really a competitive game, rather than lacking full ability availability.
In the examples you provide, one side can't just bring double the amount of players. You also generally have systems in place to ensure that players of equal skill are competing against each other rather than newbies having to flail against the most experienced people in the game (though smurfing is a thing).
I think equivalence is more in-line with the advertised selling points of Lusternia (i.e Immersion and unique classes), it's just a matter of ensuring viability. Mirroring is just the far simpler route which in turn comes with a cost.
Though unless the admin are planning to block it moving forward it seems likely that the classes would end up diverging anyway as each org starts envoying their melders, which kinda defeats the point of getting too stuck on mirroring.
Eh, it's only partially about balance. I mean, yes, balancing is easier with mirrored skills. I don't agree that reducing combat to a numbers/tactics game is a bad thing though. Whoever uses the abilities best is true competition. To get to that point, you first need to give equal access to those abilities to all parties.
Numbers/Artifacts is what I said, actually. IMO, tactics opportunities are reduced the more you mirror skills. The purpose of having different skills is to be able to use them in different - but theoretically equally damaging - ways. This equal access argument... I feel like we're talking about two different things, because:
Every other competition gives equal access to resources to both sides. Soccer? Football? Dota? Overwatch? MTG? Go? I can't think of a serious competition where you simply have access to tools that your opponents do not... because... then it's not really a competition.
We do have equal access to resources. If I wanted to play a pyromancer, I could create a character in Gaudiguch. The problem is that if in any given fight, Aquamancer > Pyromancer, then that isn't balanced. If sometimes pyromancer is better for some tactics/situations and sometimes aquamancer is better for others, then they might be. I'm all in favor of equal access to *effectiveness*. I think of it more as a competitive card game: Yes, any player can choose any card. But certain combinations will work better than others, and in any single game, you won't have access to the same cards as everyone else. So, your chances of winning will vary - but there should still be enough variation to the cards and how it's played that good strategy can overcome drawing a bad hand (most of the time).
1. If the abilities are the same, would it not be -more- important how well you use them to come out on top? If you and I have access to exactly the same firearm, our accuracy comes down entirely to our ability to aim. As soon as you change the firearm, you change the weight placed on our own abilities. I understand your argument - if I have a weaker firearm, I have to work harder to come out on top, so check out my sweet ability. But that is not true competition.
2. That is not equal access to resources. I can't play my team with a geomancer. I can entirely switch teams, but that's not the same thing. That's like saying 'well EG doesn't have access to Invoker, but Sumail wants to pick Invoker, he can just switch to Liquid!' That's not the same as each team being able to pick Invoker from the get-go. So different teams have access to different tools. The French have a bigger net than the Germans, gg.
3. I mean, I'm not trying to prove a point here beyond what I enjoy. I do not consider this a competitive game because the games I DO play competitively all allow my opponents and I equal access to resources. I believe mirroring is a good thing for Lusternia because it would transform it into a more competitive game, which is something I enjoy. However, flavor and roleplay are all very important parts of gaming - there is a reason every game isn't just a clone of Go, the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. Because fun is more than about competition.
1. If the abilities are the same, would it not be -more- important how well you use them to come out on top? If you and I have access to exactly the same firearm, our accuracy comes down entirely to our ability to aim. As soon as you change the firearm, you change the weight placed on our own abilities. I understand your argument - if I have a weaker firearm, I have to work harder to come out on top, so check out my sweet ability. But that is not true competition.
2. That is not equal access to resources. I can't play my team with a geomancer. I can entirely switch teams, but that's not the same thing. That's like saying 'well EG doesn't have access to Invoker, but Sumail wants to pick Invoker, he can just switch to Liquid!' That's not the same as each team being able to pick Invoker from the get-go. So different teams have access to different tools. The French have a bigger net than the Germans, gg.
3. I mean, I'm not trying to prove a point here beyond what I enjoy. I do not consider this a competitive game because the games I DO play competitively all allow my opponents and I equal access to resources. I believe mirroring is a good thing for Lusternia because it would transform it into a more competitive game, which is something I enjoy. However, flavor and roleplay are all very important parts of gaming - there is a reason every game isn't just a clone of Go, the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. Because fun is more than about competition.
1. Again, it's a selling point of the game that it offers unique and immersive choices for characters. The logical end of your argument seems to be that all archetypes should ultimately become generic skinned versions of each other which ultimately leaves the game offering less truly unique play styles than the other IREs bar Starmourn.
2. Bad comparisons are bad, firstly equivalence would mean EG would have access to heroes that are equivalent to Invoker so on a balance level it should be irrelevant, but also EG should have heroes that make people actively want to play for EG as your example indicates people would want to play for Liquid for Invoker.
XIV is a significantly closer comparison for equivalence. Within the role groupings you have a selection of classes that each have their own way of doing their job, for example, a White Mage has stronger heals so can sustain more where an Astrologian has party buffs to compensate for weaker healing but fights should end faster.
If the Twin Adder only had White Mages and the Flames only had Astrologians on a design level it wouldn't really be an issue because while the abilities are different they're, in theory, balanced against each other. That also expands out across other classes because the goal for the devs is that any legal party comp should be viable.
3. I expect even if you did go full mirroring on Lusternia you still wouldn't really have a more competitive game because, again, you're skimming over the structures that the games you've referenced have in place. Even if all skills are mirrored, one side is likely going to have more artifacts, more participants, more skilled players. Even just more lessons invested can make a difference because a newer player might not have an ability they needed and an older player could have the flexibility to flex classes and skills to adapt to a situation.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely Lusternia would implement something like the GW2 solution which just sets your character to max level and unlocks everything so everyone is on even ground, on top of the structures in place.
I'd like to point out that there are only a very -few- minor differences between all these melds, and those are generally three abilities that are themed in the same vein. Melder will not be a skill based class with this rework, not even close. No timing meld effects, nothing. You set the nodes, activate the effects and they auto cycle for you like bard song powers do. You use your abilities to hinder enemies in meld or hit the Unleash button. What this rework is doing is taking any individuality and making them direct mirrors with very minor differences from one another, robbing any bit of tactics from this class.
Saran said: 1. Again, it's a selling point of the game that it offers unique and immersive choices for characters. The logical end of your argument seems to be that all archetypes should ultimately become generic skinned versions of each other which ultimately leaves the game offering less truly unique play styles than the other IREs bar Starmourn.
2. Bad comparisons are bad, firstly equivalence would mean EG would have access to heroes that are equivalent to Invoker so on a balance level it should be irrelevant, but also EG should have heroes that make people actively want to play for EG as your example indicates people would want to play for Liquid for Invoker.
XIV is a significantly closer comparison for equivalence. Within the role groupings you have a selection of classes that each have their own way of doing their job, for example, a White Mage has stronger heals so can sustain more where an Astrologian has party buffs to compensate for weaker healing but fights should end faster.
If the Twin Adder only had White Mages and the Flames only had Astrologians on a design level it wouldn't really be an issue because while the abilities are different they're, in theory, balanced against each other. That also expands out across other classes because the goal for the devs is that any legal party comp should be viable.
3. I expect even if you did go full mirroring on Lusternia you still wouldn't really have a more competitive game because, again, you're skimming over the structures that the games you've referenced have in place. Even if all skills are mirrored, one side is likely going to have more artifacts, more participants, more skilled players. Even just more lessons invested can make a difference because a newer player might not have an ability they needed and an older player could have the flexibility to flex classes and skills to adapt to a situation.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely Lusternia would implement something like the GW2 solution which just sets your character to max level and unlocks everything so everyone is on even ground, on top of the structures in place.
1. Yea that's fine. The game has a different goal, no worries. I already said I just prefer mirroring because it gives competition meaning, and recognize that of course it can lead to the game being boring for others.
2. You understand ff14 is in no way a competitive game, right? Lusternia being like it is fine. Just... Yea.
3. 100% there are other barriers to making it true competition. Don't see how it invalidates the value of mirroring though.
Anyways. Re: melds.
1. Just remove whirl, doesn't do anything anyways. Make twirl the equivalent of the druid one across the board (some dr). Make raise the equivalent of the geo one across the board (damage buff).
2. Since the primaries are getting mirrored and redone in such a big way, how are secondaries looking? Mages are already mirrored with illusions, are stag/crow being looked at for similar reasons?
Saran said: 1. Again, it's a selling point of the game that it offers unique and immersive choices for characters. The logical end of your argument seems to be that all archetypes should ultimately become generic skinned versions of each other which ultimately leaves the game offering less truly unique play styles than the other IREs bar Starmourn.
2. Bad comparisons are bad, firstly equivalence would mean EG would have access to heroes that are equivalent to Invoker so on a balance level it should be irrelevant, but also EG should have heroes that make people actively want to play for EG as your example indicates people would want to play for Liquid for Invoker.
XIV is a significantly closer comparison for equivalence. Within the role groupings you have a selection of classes that each have their own way of doing their job, for example, a White Mage has stronger heals so can sustain more where an Astrologian has party buffs to compensate for weaker healing but fights should end faster.
If the Twin Adder only had White Mages and the Flames only had Astrologians on a design level it wouldn't really be an issue because while the abilities are different they're, in theory, balanced against each other. That also expands out across other classes because the goal for the devs is that any legal party comp should be viable.
3. I expect even if you did go full mirroring on Lusternia you still wouldn't really have a more competitive game because, again, you're skimming over the structures that the games you've referenced have in place. Even if all skills are mirrored, one side is likely going to have more artifacts, more participants, more skilled players. Even just more lessons invested can make a difference because a newer player might not have an ability they needed and an older player could have the flexibility to flex classes and skills to adapt to a situation.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely Lusternia would implement something like the GW2 solution which just sets your character to max level and unlocks everything so everyone is on even ground, on top of the structures in place.
1. Yea that's fine. The game has a different goal, no worries. I already said I just prefer mirroring because it gives competition meaning, and recognize that of course it can lead to the game being boring for others.
2. You understand ff14 is in no way a competitive game, right? Lusternia being like it is fine. Just... Yea.
3. 100% there are other barriers to making it true competition. Don't see how it invalidates the value of mirroring though.
Anyways. Re: melds.
1. Just remove whirl, doesn't do anything anyways. Make twirl the equivalent of the druid one across the board (some dr). Make raise the equivalent of the geo one across the board (damage buff).
2. Since the primaries are getting mirrored and redone in such a big way, how are secondaries looking? Mages are already mirrored with illusions, are stag/crow being looked at for similar reasons?
2. You understand that the comparison remains valid in structured PVP for ff14 rather than PVE which you seem to have read it as, right? And much closer than your comparisons of Lusternia to soccer and differing net sizes.
3. Because mirroring comes at the cost, as you note, of leading to the game being boring for others. There isn't a great value in doing something that'll negatively impact the game for a reason that'll likely never actually be relevant.
Right now any skill that can be done on a single target won't require a meld, it'll just require a meld to use the next steps up.
I think that really only leaves like two skills so we can maybe add 1-2 more skills that give them something to use. Maybe that's something the staff things can do.
We can adjust scarab - I didn't remember that it did damage so I wasn't including that. We can make it only block one cure and we'll adjust the numbers.
I do think we're going to go with a separate thing for Aqua's (frostbite sounds good) and leave the fire/shivering/frozen stuff in place. I think that'll be simpler overall.
With that in mind, I want to point out that original chills stuff I had listed was from Ianir's initial design page. The likely Bal/EQ malus will follow what burns currently is which is -3/-8 at level 4. I do think that burns is a good guideline to aim for given its current position. This may need adjustment but it's a good starting point.
We can change swarming's name to infestation, that sounds good to me.
As far as mirroring being a good idea or not;
I completely understand the sentiment that it makes the game more boring for others. I happen to agree, it makes things duller and less interesting.
On the other hand, players have made a big argument saying that they want things 'even and fair.' Even some of the players above arguing against mirroring have complained about one class or another being too OP and having an unfair advantage.
Mirroring is the best way to make things even. I can tell you that every skillset I've been a part of designing or coding, whether it be something put forward by players or by the admin, has had pushback from players. The same player will fight tooth and nail for their skillsets, then turn around and fight tooth and nail against other skillsets. I say this as a general statement and not regarding specific players. Players in every org do this. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing either, it's just human nature to fight for your own stuff and try to keep your opponents even.
The issue that does come with that though, is that a lot of negativity and dislike towards the 'other side' has been bred. Something we're fighting to move on from. By mirroring skillsets, we remove a large part of that argument and a large part of that divide that splits players into factions.
I think it's important to note that the synergies will be different still and we'll want to incorporate that which should still lead to more interesting group tactics. Mirroring also makes it easier for players to get involved in the PvP side of things. Instead of having to learn about 5.5 completely different classes, they really only learn about 1.5.
Lastly, it's going to a ton easier on my time and we'll be able to get this out much faster going this route. It would take a much longer time to design 6 unique skillsets and then a longer time to code each of them. This way we'll be able to streamline the coding process and once the first skillset is in, the rest of them will be pretty easy to knock out. It's nice that the final fantasy games can have different skillsets etc but I'm willing to bet they have fulltime coders/developers (plural). Unfortunately, we don't have those kinds of resources.
TL/DR - there are negative things associated with making skillsets mirrored (which I agree with), but there are also a lot of pros that may help make things in the game better.
@Orael those negatives we've already seen in the current Druidry.
From what I was aware of those issues have been such a pain that it was decided to split the skill so druids wouldn't have to be mirrored any more and could be handled as individual classes.
So, does this also mean that the players should expect that any real envoying to melders will be reflected across the board to maintain the mirroring? If not, they seem liable to diverge.
Synl's question about Stag, Crow, and Illusions seems unanswered though the implication is that yes these would also be mirrored. The same question seems relevant as well to Telekinesis, Telepathy, Shamanism, and Ecology by extension. And the answer to all of that leads back to the few points of difference between the classes moving forward.
Also, while Lusternia may have less resources, the bigger factor seems to really be that most games do more prioritising with their dev time when it comes to classes. The classes that are under-performing get more attention, the ones that are fine get less.
Lusternia's focus is typically controlled through the envoy reports and the players able to get solutions past the admin. This leads to priorities not always aligning with where dev time is needed most and some skill sets being left well behind simply because players don't enjoy them (often because they're already too undertuned)
I personally don't think secondaries need looking at, as the four mages use the same exact Phantasms skillset and the two druids use their totem spec (Stag/Crow). Changing the totems does more than do things for the melder, it also does things for the warriors as well if they so choose that specialization, so that is something to remain mindful of. As for tertiaries, TK and TP have needed a facelift to even give Dreamweaving a run for the money and Runes is still preferable to either Psionics spec.
I personally don't think secondaries need looking at, as the four mages use the same exact Phantasms skillset and the two druids use their totem spec (Stag/Crow). Changing the totems does more than do things for the melder, it also does things for the warriors as well if they so choose that specialization, so that is something to remain mindful of. As for tertiaries, TK and TP have needed a facelift to even give Dreamweaving a run for the money and Runes is still preferable to either Psionics spec.
If mirroring is the goal and the classes work effectively the same with slight thematic variation then secondaries and tertiaries are part of the equation.
Plus should melder primaries be kept mirrored moving forward then the terts and secondaries would just end up being envoyed to work with the mirrored skills anyway so it'd be more efficient to address it now and ensure that all melder skill sets are viable.
And yeah, sharing and mirroring have that issue, again, it's something that's come up regularly for years because it's already been such a pain.
edit: Like as questions...
What happens when a commune starts envoying their totems spec, ecology, or shamanism to be increasingly overtuned and synergistic with their org while the mages are stuck sharing everything?
Similarly, what happens if the Mages keep tweaking around the mirrored primary, dreamweaving, and runes to be more tuned with phantasms while one or both of the communes struggle to adapt their totems spec? (i.e the commune falls behind because they're missing a key component phantasms offers and have issues getting access because of the sharing with warriors)
I stated at the very beginning that we would likely be looking at secondaries and how they interact with the primary skillset as well as looking at tertiaries.
The plan is to move forward with these primary skillset changes and get them introduced into the game. Once they are live, with enough time for players to adapt and get used to them (usually a month or two), then we'll look at secondaries.
As to the rest - the simple answer is I don't know. They're questions that will need to be answered but they don't need to be answered -right now- because there are more important questions to answer and worry about first.
It may be that mirroring these skillsets is a flop and we need to go in a different direction. It may be that we like having primary skills mirrored but we want to make secondary/tertiary skills unique so they really drive across the synergy of an org. It may be that we want to move to this model for every skillset. There isn't a point to spend time and energy discussing a potential situation when we don't have all the information needed to discuss it effectively.
(PS, yes we can change Preserve/lines to be more flavourful @Auriella )
Orael said: It may be that mirroring these skillsets is a flop and we need to go in a different direction. It may be that we like having primary skills mirrored but we want to make secondary/tertiary skills unique so they really drive across the synergy of an org. It may be that we want to move to this model for every skillset. There isn't a point to spend time and energy discussing a potential situation when we don't have all the information needed to discuss it effectively.
Except that, you kinda do have information. Druidry has been an example of a shared skill since Glomdoring was launched.
One that, again, was such a pain to deal with that one of the first questions when this came up was like "Can we finally split druidry?" and it was already a confirmed yes. This direction is so jarring because it seems to defeat the point of that.
edit: Actually, is Druidry still being split? There's some abilities in the list that are different but around half have the same names just build the relevant sides aff and the question of skinning the HS abilities to be more reflective of the HS wasn't answered.
I feel like you didn't read the paragraph that you quoted. That paragraph is a response to your previous questions showing three different scenarios that would result in three different answers.
Again - HS is being mirrored, just like the rest of them are. The lines will be fitting towards the HS meld.
I feel like you didn't read the paragraph that you quoted. That paragraph is a response to your previous questions showing three different scenarios that would result in three different answers.
Again - HS is being mirrored, just like the rest of them are. The lines will be fitting towards the HS meld.
Yes, I read it and then pointed out that one of those scenarios can happen, and already has, because it already exists. Which has created issues when trying to envoy things for one class but not the other.
For the second, my question was whether they would be shared still because sharing can still happen with mirroring and how they are laid out now could be read either way.
Mirroring is going to seem problematic unless you go more hardline with it. Like Enya mentioned, compare bleeding in one org vs another. Or poison damage vs excoro (different resistances available).
At the same time, though, you have to start somewhere, and 'the aoe group class' seems like a decent a place as any. If it goes ok, maybe they can look at mirroring guardians/Wiccans a bit more. If it goes poorly, well, we can rant then.
Mirroring is going to seem problematic unless you go more hardline with it. Like Enya mentioned, compare bleeding in one org vs another. Or poison damage vs excoro (different resistances available).
At the same time, though, you have to start somewhere, and 'the aoe group class' seems like a decent a place as any. If it goes ok, maybe they can look at mirroring guardians/Wiccans a bit more. If it goes poorly, well, we can rant then.
Yeah, that's where the current standard for the majority of classes works (by this I mean primary = class unique, secondary = shared with archetype or shared with org, tertiary = shared in various ways) because the tools that class and org should have unique to them can be in their unique skills. Then if it's a problem you can just address that class/org rather than going "oh well we can't change X ability because while it's UP for Y improving it will make Z OP. (Ironically, my BF mentioned that it's actually a pretty common issue with DOTA items cause some heroes can be reliant on items that make others OP. edit: i.e the issue can come down to one specific thing but it's can be incredibly hard to change when others need it too.)
The other thing that hasn't really been said yet is that this sounds awful like it's edging towards "Combat Overhaul X.0" when less than a year ago we had how many threads where it combat overhaul fatigue was a common complaint and there was hope for focus on other parts of the game.
OK, now that I have a few moments, let me dig a little deeper.
The melder revamp aims to make pyromancer the standard, essentially, by introducing a level aff for everyone.
Problem 1: As written, most of the cures need to change. Why?
The Synergy affs for Gaudi are: - Temp insanity (lucidity) - Burns (ice)
Every other org appears to be getting same cure pairs.
I would disagree with giving every mage a same cure setup, which encourages pretty much automatic building of affs, especially if the cures do not auto lower both. Additionally, the way the level aff stuff works right now heavily disfavours trying to cure this as "part of the natural course" in that if a meld can do two lines at once, you have to actively focus one (ignoring normal afflictions and taking high cure balance), or likely die very quickly.
This exacerbates the current issue of things just building up and happening too quickly. I believe it is healthier if all orgs have 2 different cure balances. Will it be ideal? No. Will it be better than, say, double dust build up afflictions in Mag? Yes.
Solution: Move the new affliction to a cure that is not on the cure of the other affliction the org uses (e.g. if they have deathmark, it shouldn't be dust for the new aff). If for some reason we need them on the same cure, we should increase the affliction builds in both pools on pyro to average (which is still not ideal).
Problem 2: Every meld gets a power room effect. These are implemented very unevenly and I would like to suggest changes, and why.
Pyromancer - Blackout over meld on tics. This seems okay, although annoying to be hit by.
Darkseed - Passive entangle, more rapid on single target. This sounds like it is potentially a considerable hinder that borders on passive. How often does this hit? How long does it last? Entangle is still a base 4s cure, so this may be a bit much depending on the timers.
Scarab - Cure hindering. This is an uncurable cure hinder in a game where we have things stack too readily. This gets worse against single targets, leading to a potential issue with any real attempts to cure. If this type of effect is intended, we should weaken this significantly, maybe have it effect the cures time or something instead of stopping it outright.
Needlerain - Strips defenses. This seems fairly mild, though unbelievably annoying as well. Drowning damage is very very high for a passive effect. I also dislike the issues with movement this presents, but... overall this isn't going to break things generally.
Chasm - Off bal tics. No, for the love of Nil, we do not need balance loss as a meld passive (that'd stack on the other causes of it passive). Especially one that can tic often. Phantoms can entangle, imagine having 1 tic of entangle between balance loss tics. If this is kept, I would strongly suggest making it like 1s of balance loss and making it every 5-6s for single target. Removing the ability to have an offense is how you convert a fight to a disappointment.
Northwind - Strip levitation and throw into air. This one I dislike for other reasons. This is an effect to stop instakills. I am not a fan of anything that potentially aims to break the use of any kind of timed insta. Flight is fairly common, so this is a hard counter. We cannot even say "then dont have wings", as those were part of suits and such already. This would have had to come out before suits got wings, or we would like the option to refund suit modules, as this backfires on us. Heck as an ascendant you are passively screwed by this. Instead of giving it the "throw in air" effect, I'd rather see it try to throw up and back down, maybe breaking a random 1-2 limbs.
Solution: I advise changing chasm and scarab, unless you weaken them a fair bit. Stripping of waterlk/waterbreathe and passive blackout are a far margin different than curing shutdown or off balance knocks.
Problem 3: Eq/bal penalties from affs.
Yes, this is a current effect of burns... but it is like -1 level for each level after 1. So when I can kill you outright, you have a -3. -10 is too much, this adds .8s of balance to things when you can die, but still adds a .4s delay (which is HUGE in real combat) from passives firing. I want to focus this as a pet peeve, do not make it harder to fight back, that is how you stop it from being a fight.
Old aeon did this and I, and likely many others, were happy when this was changed. Combat is not combat if you cannot fight back. Every action is a liability, because you chose not to do something else, but penaltys and passives that effect eq/bal make things worse.
Solution: Lower the levels to 0/-4, -1/-6, -2/-8, and -3/-10. This is reasonable.
Problem 4: Aeromancer swiftwind is a bit much. Yes, I know they have a similar effect now.
Keeping in line with prior reasoning: Making combat harder as a passive is bad. This power goes both ways, it also speeds up allies significantly. That is more skewing than you'd expect.
Solution: Replace swiftwind's effect or weaken significantly. Potential weakening could be to have it do a flat .1s or .2s slow balance (it picks randomly) on targets. Same speedup for allies. This is non-scaling, because 3.5s for a warrior attack or such would terrible on a high penalty, while bards may not notice it as much. The power as written currently favors people who are already inherently faster.
Problem 5: Meld breaking.
I am hearing that if the melder walks back in the room while the break is activated, it fails. They can also room dance to avoid avatar dying. This makes melds potentially harder to deal with than now in some ways. Melds appear to get stronger effects, but become harder to break. Being able to break rapidly has been a key factor in combat until this point. Pollute/fury/etc is coming, break the room to avoid it. With a 5s channel that the caster can stop be walking through, this will never happen. I would like to suggest we look at having room breaks be very quick when the melder isn't present, and simply take longer when they are. You are still committing 5s to break the room with no other offense. This trades the ability to break a timed effect (pollute) in a timely fashion for the ability to better control situations where the melder is not present.
This effect extends to the avatar side of things. We need to make sure that you cannot dance to avoid unbreakable melds. We need a way to deal with melds against a melder who is in and out, so we need avatar to be slayable for a time after melder enters room still. This otherwise is going to be a nightmare to deal with, especially when people can fly or tree through a room.
This is also made harder by the "inheriting" of melds. I can kill Veldrin and Shango just ends up taking the meld. So we have mages potentially becoming sequential targets. This sucks honestly, right now only the melding mage is a concern, but with buffs to the meld, all mages become a problem immediately. I'd like to see them have to do something to retake the meld on a room by room basis at least. If they inherit the meld, consider having the effects drop.
Solution: I said it. Make breaking when the melder is present 5s and much faster (1 or 2s) when the melder isn't in the room. This should apply to the rooms with nodes and without. The mages should be inherently better at dealing with nodes. Additionally, change how you inherit a meld, so it isn't just a running chain and requires active time and investment from the "inheriter". The meld attunes to you, but the powers fade and maybe you lose some rooms/nodes. Allow the avatar to be attacked when melder is in rune, if they leave with the avatar dead, the room breaks without their presence maintaining it.
Problem 6: Level afflictions RNG
Level affs were changed awhile back to something unexpected. Instead of curing level afflictions alongside normal (to avoid stacking issues), you now have a random chance to cure each, but with no bonus to it.
This means every level affliction potentially "protects" one of your other afflictions. So having tempinsane, addiction, and anorexia means you have a 1 in 3 chance of failing to cure a serious affliction, while not fully curing temp insanity. I think we should revert this interaction to the old system: If you cure an affliction, it should cure a small amount of one of the level afflictions in it's pool too. I say "one of" because I would like to see cures shuffle on the mage unique aff in each org. So you don't cure aff + particulate + deathmark, because particulate wouldn't be on dust. However, if we make cloudcoils be a dust cure (just as an example), it should cure an aff and EITHER deathmark or cloudcoils.
Solution: Revert level affs to be cured to a lesser extent when any aff is cured, and require focusing to target cure the affliction. This will leave us less instances of affliction build up, while still working with the idea of building.
Question: Are all instakills going to do affs and stun on fail? I see it noted for aero, and really only aeros.
I believe for chills, we should actually leave the poison unrelated to the levelled aff. Pyrotoxin causes ablaze, not burns, so it does not directly build the levels on hit. Is it a cure? Yes, the same way chills would be. I believe this should be kept in intent, where everyone doesn't have a poison to directly build the levels.
On a random note: It seems so odd that everyone suddenly gets the same affs into melds from their city. Deathmark is a necromantic/excorable basis, which I do not see geomancers using. Timewarp is suddenly attached to air. Etcetera. Is there a reason that a meld has to do both at once? Can we make it a power cost effect to cause a conversion or burst of an aff based on level of the other? So instead of geos passively building deathmark, they can choose to increase deathmark based on particulate level? This goes for everyone, it seems like a bad idea for melds to make the "org insta" notably easier to pull off.
I do not expect most people to agree with everything, but my goal for these changes is:
1) Make melders not an issue that suddenly causes everyone to die due to cure stacking. 2) Make combat stay combat, no locking down or significant delays that you can't stop. 3) Address the fact that level afflictions are kind of dumb in that they penalize focusing but kill you if they aren't focused. 4) Make mages better able to deal with mages over current suggestions.
This was a lengthy post, but this is a big area that can only be done once. If we come out with mages being insane, we will see a lot of problems, and they will all be ROOM/AREA scale, not single target potentially. We need to be very careful and it would be better to start everyone weak and temper up, than to start crazy and make it bad. If I give you something insane, let's say 5K damage passive, you are more likely to support moving to 3K than 1K, because it feels like you lost more. It is better I give you 200 and move up to 1K. Everyone sees it more positively when it feels like you got something more.
Melds should still not be a requirement to combat, but the new melds seem like they are better than old melds, and it doesn't sound like you can deal with mages without one, because the mage can dance to avoid most things.
Comments
Cons: Reduces combat to a numbers/artifacts game primarily, with less need to work out combinations of skills or strategies(I mean, that wouldn't be entirely true, but it would take out a lot of unusual combinations and options). Removes rp-flavour of some skills(different messages, same effect still = less uniqueness)
Balancing is hard, sure. But why would mirrored skillsets be an incentive to get into pvp? I strongly believe it would make it less interesting.
I'm in favour of mirroring skills across all 6 because mirroring opposite pairs, i.e. Mag/Celest only works if we assume "opposites" are never going to be allied, and we can't be sure of that. Just imagine what it would be like if only Seren and Glom had manakills, for example, and then they allied with each other.
Every other competition gives equal access to resources to both sides. Soccer? Football? Dota? Overwatch? MTG? Go? I can't think of a serious competition where you simply have access to tools that your opponents do not... because... then it's not really a competition.
Maybe that's a personal definition thing, but that's why I can't really take Lusternia combat seriously. If characters were more fluid, ie. like an MMO where your artifacts are tied to your account and shared across your characters, then you could make an argument. Otherwise I firmly put Lusternia in the 'not a competitive game, but played competitively for some reason'-camp.
That's also why I'm pleased by the general direction Orael took on the design here. I'd mirror the abilities even harder, especially since things like anorexia vs. entangle interact so differently within the game.
Blacktalon: Meldwide Anorexia/Slitthroat
WTB Scarab for Hartstone
I'm fine with room/meld wide scarab effect being changed (Maybe two or three delayed balance/curative knocks + damage rather than random temporary incurable anorexia/slitthroat. Just spitballing here.) and increasing the single target power cost OR reducing duration.
For transparency current numbers: Scarab lasts ~60 seconds. Did 657 health damage against a 10400 health target. 785 health damage against a 12420 health target. Damage happens on spit out, not during anorexia effect. Anorexia effects lasted ~two seconds each tic. First tic is two seconds after cast. Then appears to vary anywhere from ten seconds to seven seconds.
In the examples you provide, one side can't just bring double the amount of players. You also generally have systems in place to ensure that players of equal skill are competing against each other rather than newbies having to flail against the most experienced people in the game (though smurfing is a thing).
I think equivalence is more in-line with the advertised selling points of Lusternia (i.e Immersion and unique classes), it's just a matter of ensuring viability. Mirroring is just the far simpler route which in turn comes with a cost.
Though unless the admin are planning to block it moving forward it seems likely that the classes would end up diverging anyway as each org starts envoying their melders, which kinda defeats the point of getting too stuck on mirroring.
2. That is not equal access to resources. I can't play my team with a geomancer. I can entirely switch teams, but that's not the same thing. That's like saying 'well EG doesn't have access to Invoker, but Sumail wants to pick Invoker, he can just switch to Liquid!' That's not the same as each team being able to pick Invoker from the get-go. So different teams have access to different tools. The French have a bigger net than the Germans, gg.
3. I mean, I'm not trying to prove a point here beyond what I enjoy. I do not consider this a competitive game because the games I DO play competitively all allow my opponents and I equal access to resources. I believe mirroring is a good thing for Lusternia because it would transform it into a more competitive game, which is something I enjoy. However, flavor and roleplay are all very important parts of gaming - there is a reason every game isn't just a clone of Go, the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. Because fun is more than about competition.
2. Bad comparisons are bad, firstly equivalence would mean EG would have access to heroes that are equivalent to Invoker so on a balance level it should be irrelevant, but also EG should have heroes that make people actively want to play for EG as your example indicates people would want to play for Liquid for Invoker.
XIV is a significantly closer comparison for equivalence.
Within the role groupings you have a selection of classes that each have their own way of doing their job, for example, a White Mage has stronger heals so can sustain more where an Astrologian has party buffs to compensate for weaker healing but fights should end faster.
If the Twin Adder only had White Mages and the Flames only had Astrologians on a design level it wouldn't really be an issue because while the abilities are different they're, in theory, balanced against each other. That also expands out across other classes because the goal for the devs is that any legal party comp should be viable.
3. I expect even if you did go full mirroring on Lusternia you still wouldn't really have a more competitive game because, again, you're skimming over the structures that the games you've referenced have in place.
Even if all skills are mirrored, one side is likely going to have more artifacts, more participants, more skilled players. Even just more lessons invested can make a difference because a newer player might not have an ability they needed and an older player could have the flexibility to flex classes and skills to adapt to a situation.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely Lusternia would implement something like the GW2 solution which just sets your character to max level and unlocks everything so everyone is on even ground, on top of the structures in place.
2. You understand ff14 is in no way a competitive game, right? Lusternia being like it is fine. Just... Yea.
3. 100% there are other barriers to making it true competition. Don't see how it invalidates the value of mirroring though.
Anyways. Re: melds.
1. Just remove whirl, doesn't do anything anyways. Make twirl the equivalent of the druid one across the board (some dr). Make raise the equivalent of the geo one across the board (damage buff).
2. Since the primaries are getting mirrored and redone in such a big way, how are secondaries looking? Mages are already mirrored with illusions, are stag/crow being looked at for similar reasons?
3. Because mirroring comes at the cost, as you note, of leading to the game being boring for others. There isn't a great value in doing something that'll negatively impact the game for a reason that'll likely never actually be relevant.
I think that really only leaves like two skills so we can maybe add 1-2 more skills that give them something to use. Maybe that's something the staff things can do.
We can adjust scarab - I didn't remember that it did damage so I wasn't including that. We can make it only block one cure and we'll adjust the numbers.
I do think we're going to go with a separate thing for Aqua's (frostbite sounds good) and leave the fire/shivering/frozen stuff in place. I think that'll be simpler overall.
With that in mind, I want to point out that original chills stuff I had listed was from Ianir's initial design page. The likely Bal/EQ malus will follow what burns currently is which is -3/-8 at level 4. I do think that burns is a good guideline to aim for given its current position. This may need adjustment but it's a good starting point.
We can change swarming's name to infestation, that sounds good to me.
As far as mirroring being a good idea or not;
I completely understand the sentiment that it makes the game more boring for others. I happen to agree, it makes things duller and less interesting.
On the other hand, players have made a big argument saying that they want things 'even and fair.' Even some of the players above arguing against mirroring have complained about one class or another being too OP and having an unfair advantage.
Mirroring is the best way to make things even. I can tell you that every skillset I've been a part of designing or coding, whether it be something put forward by players or by the admin, has had pushback from players. The same player will fight tooth and nail for their skillsets, then turn around and fight tooth and nail against other skillsets. I say this as a general statement and not regarding specific players. Players in every org do this. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing either, it's just human nature to fight for your own stuff and try to keep your opponents even.
The issue that does come with that though, is that a lot of negativity and dislike towards the 'other side' has been bred. Something we're fighting to move on from. By mirroring skillsets, we remove a large part of that argument and a large part of that divide that splits players into factions.
I think it's important to note that the synergies will be different still and we'll want to incorporate that which should still lead to more interesting group tactics. Mirroring also makes it easier for players to get involved in the PvP side of things. Instead of having to learn about 5.5 completely different classes, they really only learn about 1.5.
Lastly, it's going to a ton easier on my time and we'll be able to get this out much faster going this route. It would take a much longer time to design 6 unique skillsets and then a longer time to code each of them. This way we'll be able to streamline the coding process and once the first skillset is in, the rest of them will be pretty easy to knock out. It's nice that the final fantasy games can have different skillsets etc but I'm willing to bet they have fulltime coders/developers (plural). Unfortunately, we don't have those kinds of resources.
TL/DR - there are negative things associated with making skillsets mirrored (which I agree with), but there are also a lot of pros that may help make things in the game better.
From what I was aware of those issues have been such a pain that it was decided to split the skill so druids wouldn't have to be mirrored any more and could be handled as individual classes.
So, does this also mean that the players should expect that any real envoying to melders will be reflected across the board to maintain the mirroring? If not, they seem liable to diverge.
Synl's question about Stag, Crow, and Illusions seems unanswered though the implication is that yes these would also be mirrored.
The same question seems relevant as well to Telekinesis, Telepathy, Shamanism, and Ecology by extension. And the answer to all of that leads back to the few points of difference between the classes moving forward.
Also, while Lusternia may have less resources, the bigger factor seems to really be that most games do more prioritising with their dev time when it comes to classes. The classes that are under-performing get more attention, the ones that are fine get less.
Lusternia's focus is typically controlled through the envoy reports and the players able to get solutions past the admin. This leads to priorities not always aligning with where dev time is needed most and some skill sets being left well behind simply because players don't enjoy them (often because they're already too undertuned)
Plus should melder primaries be kept mirrored moving forward then the terts and secondaries would just end up being envoyed to work with the mirrored skills anyway so it'd be more efficient to address it now and ensure that all melder skill sets are viable.
And yeah, sharing and mirroring have that issue, again, it's something that's come up regularly for years because it's already been such a pain.
edit:
Like as questions...
What happens when a commune starts envoying their totems spec, ecology, or shamanism to be increasingly overtuned and synergistic with their org while the mages are stuck sharing everything?
Similarly, what happens if the Mages keep tweaking around the mirrored primary, dreamweaving, and runes to be more tuned with phantasms while one or both of the communes struggle to adapt their totems spec? (i.e the commune falls behind because they're missing a key component phantasms offers and have issues getting access because of the sharing with warriors)
The plan is to move forward with these primary skillset changes and get them introduced into the game. Once they are live, with enough time for players to adapt and get used to them (usually a month or two), then we'll look at secondaries.
As to the rest - the simple answer is I don't know. They're questions that will need to be answered but they don't need to be answered -right now- because there are more important questions to answer and worry about first.
It may be that mirroring these skillsets is a flop and we need to go in a different direction. It may be that we like having primary skills mirrored but we want to make secondary/tertiary skills unique so they really drive across the synergy of an org. It may be that we want to move to this model for every skillset. There isn't a point to spend time and energy discussing a potential situation when we don't have all the information needed to discuss it effectively.
(PS, yes we can change Preserve/lines to be more flavourful @Auriella )
One that, again, was such a pain to deal with that one of the first questions when this came up was like "Can we finally split druidry?" and it was already a confirmed yes.
This direction is so jarring because it seems to defeat the point of that.
edit: Actually, is Druidry still being split?
There's some abilities in the list that are different but around half have the same names just build the relevant sides aff and the question of skinning the HS abilities to be more reflective of the HS wasn't answered.
Again - HS is being mirrored, just like the rest of them are. The lines will be fitting towards the HS meld.
For the second, my question was whether they would be shared still because sharing can still happen with mirroring and how they are laid out now could be read either way.
If split, well here's a layout that uses the HS stones for it's theme.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1djxuyPn0h0rO22IjoNXdSpOPm3Awi9sOyZuePhzWjbA/edit?usp=sharing
But if they're shared it can't really be done.
At the same time, though, you have to start somewhere, and 'the aoe group class' seems like a decent a place as any. If it goes ok, maybe they can look at mirroring guardians/Wiccans a bit more. If it goes poorly, well, we can rant then.
(Ironically, my BF mentioned that it's actually a pretty common issue with DOTA items cause some heroes can be reliant on items that make others OP. edit: i.e the issue can come down to one specific thing but it's can be incredibly hard to change when others need it too.)
The other thing that hasn't really been said yet is that this sounds awful like it's edging towards "Combat Overhaul X.0" when less than a year ago we had how many threads where it combat overhaul fatigue was a common complaint and there was hope for focus on other parts of the game.
The melder revamp aims to make pyromancer the standard, essentially, by introducing a level aff for everyone.
Problem 1:
As written, most of the cures need to change. Why?
The Synergy affs for Gaudi are:
- Temp insanity (lucidity)
- Burns (ice)
Every other org appears to be getting same cure pairs.
I would disagree with giving every mage a same cure setup, which encourages pretty much automatic building of affs, especially if the cures do not auto lower both. Additionally, the way the level aff stuff works right now heavily disfavours trying to cure this as "part of the natural course" in that if a meld can do two lines at once, you have to actively focus one (ignoring normal afflictions and taking high cure balance), or likely die very quickly.
This exacerbates the current issue of things just building up and happening too quickly. I believe it is healthier if all orgs have 2 different cure balances. Will it be ideal? No. Will it be better than, say, double dust build up afflictions in Mag? Yes.
Solution: Move the new affliction to a cure that is not on the cure of the other affliction the org uses (e.g. if they have deathmark, it shouldn't be dust for the new aff). If for some reason we need them on the same cure, we should increase the affliction builds in both pools on pyro to average (which is still not ideal).
Problem 2:
Every meld gets a power room effect. These are implemented very unevenly and I would like to suggest changes, and why.
Pyromancer - Blackout over meld on tics. This seems okay, although annoying to be hit by.
Darkseed - Passive entangle, more rapid on single target. This sounds like it is potentially a considerable hinder that borders on passive. How often does this hit? How long does it last? Entangle is still a base 4s cure, so this may be a bit much depending on the timers.
Scarab - Cure hindering. This is an uncurable cure hinder in a game where we have things stack too readily. This gets worse against single targets, leading to a potential issue with any real attempts to cure. If this type of effect is intended, we should weaken this significantly, maybe have it effect the cures time or something instead of stopping it outright.
Needlerain - Strips defenses. This seems fairly mild, though unbelievably annoying as well. Drowning damage is very very high for a passive effect. I also dislike the issues with movement this presents, but... overall this isn't going to break things generally.
Chasm - Off bal tics. No, for the love of Nil, we do not need balance loss as a meld passive (that'd stack on the other causes of it passive). Especially one that can tic often. Phantoms can entangle, imagine having 1 tic of entangle between balance loss tics. If this is kept, I would strongly suggest making it like 1s of balance loss and making it every 5-6s for single target. Removing the ability to have an offense is how you convert a fight to a disappointment.
Northwind - Strip levitation and throw into air. This one I dislike for other reasons. This is an effect to stop instakills. I am not a fan of anything that potentially aims to break the use of any kind of timed insta. Flight is fairly common, so this is a hard counter. We cannot even say "then dont have wings", as those were part of suits and such already. This would have had to come out before suits got wings, or we would like the option to refund suit modules, as this backfires on us. Heck as an ascendant you are passively screwed by this. Instead of giving it the "throw in air" effect, I'd rather see it try to throw up and back down, maybe breaking a random 1-2 limbs.
Solution: I advise changing chasm and scarab, unless you weaken them a fair bit. Stripping of waterlk/waterbreathe and passive blackout are a far margin different than curing shutdown or off balance knocks.
Problem 3:
Eq/bal penalties from affs.
Yes, this is a current effect of burns... but it is like -1 level for each level after 1. So when I can kill you outright, you have a -3. -10 is too much, this adds .8s of balance to things when you can die, but still adds a .4s delay (which is HUGE in real combat) from passives firing. I want to focus this as a pet peeve, do not make it harder to fight back, that is how you stop it from being a fight.
Old aeon did this and I, and likely many others, were happy when this was changed. Combat is not combat if you cannot fight back. Every action is a liability, because you chose not to do something else, but penaltys and passives that effect eq/bal make things worse.
Solution: Lower the levels to 0/-4, -1/-6, -2/-8, and -3/-10. This is reasonable.
Problem 4:
Aeromancer swiftwind is a bit much. Yes, I know they have a similar effect now.
Keeping in line with prior reasoning: Making combat harder as a passive is bad. This power goes both ways, it also speeds up allies significantly. That is more skewing than you'd expect.
Solution: Replace swiftwind's effect or weaken significantly. Potential weakening could be to have it do a flat .1s or .2s slow balance (it picks randomly) on targets. Same speedup for allies. This is non-scaling, because 3.5s for a warrior attack or such would terrible on a high penalty, while bards may not notice it as much. The power as written currently favors people who are already inherently faster.
Problem 5:
Meld breaking.
I am hearing that if the melder walks back in the room while the break is activated, it fails. They can also room dance to avoid avatar dying. This makes melds potentially harder to deal with than now in some ways. Melds appear to get stronger effects, but become harder to break. Being able to break rapidly has been a key factor in combat until this point. Pollute/fury/etc is coming, break the room to avoid it. With a 5s channel that the caster can stop be walking through, this will never happen. I would like to suggest we look at having room breaks be very quick when the melder isn't present, and simply take longer when they are. You are still committing 5s to break the room with no other offense. This trades the ability to break a timed effect (pollute) in a timely fashion for the ability to better control situations where the melder is not present.
This effect extends to the avatar side of things. We need to make sure that you cannot dance to avoid unbreakable melds. We need a way to deal with melds against a melder who is in and out, so we need avatar to be slayable for a time after melder enters room still. This otherwise is going to be a nightmare to deal with, especially when people can fly or tree through a room.
This is also made harder by the "inheriting" of melds. I can kill Veldrin and Shango just ends up taking the meld. So we have mages potentially becoming sequential targets. This sucks honestly, right now only the melding mage is a concern, but with buffs to the meld, all mages become a problem immediately. I'd like to see them have to do something to retake the meld on a room by room basis at least. If they inherit the meld, consider having the effects drop.
Solution: I said it. Make breaking when the melder is present 5s and much faster (1 or 2s) when the melder isn't in the room. This should apply to the rooms with nodes and without. The mages should be inherently better at dealing with nodes. Additionally, change how you inherit a meld, so it isn't just a running chain and requires active time and investment from the "inheriter". The meld attunes to you, but the powers fade and maybe you lose some rooms/nodes. Allow the avatar to be attacked when melder is in rune, if they leave with the avatar dead, the room breaks without their presence maintaining it.
Problem 6:
Level afflictions RNG
Level affs were changed awhile back to something unexpected. Instead of curing level afflictions alongside normal (to avoid stacking issues), you now have a random chance to cure each, but with no bonus to it.
This means every level affliction potentially "protects" one of your other afflictions. So having tempinsane, addiction, and anorexia means you have a 1 in 3 chance of failing to cure a serious affliction, while not fully curing temp insanity. I think we should revert this interaction to the old system: If you cure an affliction, it should cure a small amount of one of the level afflictions in it's pool too. I say "one of" because I would like to see cures shuffle on the mage unique aff in each org. So you don't cure aff + particulate + deathmark, because particulate wouldn't be on dust. However, if we make cloudcoils be a dust cure (just as an example), it should cure an aff and EITHER deathmark or cloudcoils.
Solution: Revert level affs to be cured to a lesser extent when any aff is cured, and require focusing to target cure the affliction. This will leave us less instances of affliction build up, while still working with the idea of building.
Question: Are all instakills going to do affs and stun on fail? I see it noted for aero, and really only aeros.
I believe for chills, we should actually leave the poison unrelated to the levelled aff. Pyrotoxin causes ablaze, not burns, so it does not directly build the levels on hit. Is it a cure? Yes, the same way chills would be. I believe this should be kept in intent, where everyone doesn't have a poison to directly build the levels.
On a random note: It seems so odd that everyone suddenly gets the same affs into melds from their city. Deathmark is a necromantic/excorable basis, which I do not see geomancers using. Timewarp is suddenly attached to air. Etcetera. Is there a reason that a meld has to do both at once? Can we make it a power cost effect to cause a conversion or burst of an aff based on level of the other? So instead of geos passively building deathmark, they can choose to increase deathmark based on particulate level? This goes for everyone, it seems like a bad idea for melds to make the "org insta" notably easier to pull off.
I do not expect most people to agree with everything, but my goal for these changes is:
1) Make melders not an issue that suddenly causes everyone to die due to cure stacking.
2) Make combat stay combat, no locking down or significant delays that you can't stop.
3) Address the fact that level afflictions are kind of dumb in that they penalize focusing but kill you if they aren't focused.
4) Make mages better able to deal with mages over current suggestions.
This was a lengthy post, but this is a big area that can only be done once. If we come out with mages being insane, we will see a lot of problems, and they will all be ROOM/AREA scale, not single target potentially. We need to be very careful and it would be better to start everyone weak and temper up, than to start crazy and make it bad. If I give you something insane, let's say 5K damage passive, you are more likely to support moving to 3K than 1K, because it feels like you lost more. It is better I give you 200 and move up to 1K. Everyone sees it more positively when it feels like you got something more.
Melds should still not be a requirement to combat, but the new melds seem like they are better than old melds, and it doesn't sound like you can deal with mages without one, because the mage can dance to avoid most things.
-Malarious