Considering I've seen real live people with one hand cut off use a staff to attack/parry/whatever, I don't see how your argument holds water. A staff isn't a giant axe/sword/polearm where you can't even lift it with one hand. The way I see it with both ninja and tahtetso using their weapons is they swing it with the arm they're currently attacking with rather than using both arms to swing the weapon at you. Yes, the weapon is two handed, but that's only because it would look ridiculous (not to mention unwieldy) for any one person to be wielding two staffs at the same time. Think of it this way... left hand takes full control of weapon, does a jab/thrust/swing/whatever... switch weapon to right hand, perform attack, etc.
And yes, kata forms stop dead at a disabled limb, so technically their offense is in a much worse situation than a warrior in where you can break a single limb and stop three attacks from happening at once rather than just one in the case of say blademaster. Just got to pay attention to the way your opponent fights and target the limb that is primary in their forms. And really, the argument that they can continue attacking even though they're using a 2H weapon and have an arm broken isn't really the point here. They don't do full damage/wounding/afflictions with each tahto/chain attack, they do roughly 1/4 of their damage/wounding and 1/3 of their afflicting on that balance whereas an AL/Cav/PB do their full damage/wounding/afflicting on each attack.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I thoroughly dislike discrepancies between similar situations allowed because it is possible RPly for one but not for the other. (I'm not commented on the exact situation now. Frankly, I don't know which way I think it should work. This is just a generalization.)
After all, I can't steal someone's shadow in the real world. I also do not have a demon dog that can paralyse people by barking. You just can't involve RP in combat like that because it's not something that can be applied to all situations. We have to look solely at the mechanics and leave the RP for the combat messages.
Situations aren't similar. Tahtetso/Ninjakari use each hand/arm to attack once for 50% of the full tahto/chain, not once for both arms. Just because the whole thing comes in a single block (due to it being kata) doesn't mean it's the same situation as a warrior. Heck, if you wanted to complain why not address the fact that shofangi/nekotai's katas can get fully interrupted when a single arm is disabled even though they're dual wielding? That's pretty much the way monks work.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Situations aren't similar. Tahtetso/Ninjakari use each hand/arm to attack once for 50% of the full tahto/chain, not once for both arms. Just because the whole thing comes in a single block (due to it being kata) doesn't mean it's the same situation as a warrior. Heck, if you wanted to complain why not address the fact that shofangi/nekotai's katas can get fully interrupted when a single arm is disabled even though they're dual wielding? That's pretty much the way monks work.
I stated I don't think it's quite right to base combat mechanics off RP. I am not arguing about any mechanics at all. I also explicitly mentioned that I do not have a dog in this fight.
(I realize it's also more likely that you're addressing something someone said earlier, but if that is the case, you probably would have edited your post.)
For the record I do disagree with the entire form failing if the first action can't be completed. That said the only things likely to knock off Monks are other Monks or Pyroamps, because tattoo armour + kata deflect = utterly ridiculous wound reduction on arms, and that's before you throw in Psymet to spread the wounds further, so the occurances of it happening aren't as frequent as "You require both arms functional" spam for 2h Knights.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
For the record I do disagree with the entire form failing if the first action can't be completed. That said the only things likely to knock off Monks are other Monks or Pyroamps, because tattoo armour + kata deflect = utterly ridiculous wound reduction on arms, and that's before you throw in Psymet to spread the wounds further, so the occurances of it happening aren't as frequent as "You require both arms functional" spam for 2h Knights.
Burst aff classes can handle them well. That said, burst aff classes can handle just about anything well.
For the record I do disagree with the entire form failing if the first action can't be completed. That said the only things likely to knock off Monks are other Monks or Pyroamps, because tattoo armour + kata deflect = utterly ridiculous wound reduction on arms, and that's before you throw in Psymet to spread the wounds further, so the occurances of it happening aren't as frequent as "You require both arms functional" spam for 2h Knights.
Or you can just go for the legs and be done with it. Either way, monks tend to be the anti-warrior class, although they do have perks against other classes, too, but I'd say they can mess a warrior up much faster and easier than anyone else... save maybe guardians/wiccans, but eh... as someone else mentioned, burst aff classes can mess anything up.
Kata deflect only protects one side, in much the same way a shield does for everyone else. Tattoo armour gives them a bit lower physical protection than plate (if they're trans tattoos, if not... it's not really worth mentioning), so I guess you can grab a guildie, throw them a tower shield and see about working around that too. Added perk being that if monks parry you, they don't smash a shield in your face unlike everyone else. Yes, psymet forcedsymmetry can be a pain, but it all depends... if you're dishing out enough wounding to hit a tendon, for instance, on the second swing you'll have one leg at tendon level and the other one swing away from it. Some monks swear by it, but if it's not properly managed (Which is often the case) it can actually make things worse for the monk rather than better.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
For the record I do disagree with the entire form failing if the first action can't be completed. That said the only things likely to knock off Monks are other Monks or Pyroamps, because tattoo armour + kata deflect = utterly ridiculous wound reduction on arms, and that's before you throw in Psymet to spread the wounds further, so the occurances of it happening aren't as frequent as "You require both arms functional" spam for 2h Knights.
Or you can just go for the legs and be done with it. Either way, monks tend to be the anti-warrior class, although they do have perks against other classes, too, but I'd say they can mess a warrior up much faster and easier than anyone else... save maybe guardians/wiccans, but eh... as someone else mentioned, burst aff classes can mess anything up.
Kata deflect only protects one side, in much the same way a shield does for everyone else. Tattoo armour gives them a bit lower physical protection than plate (if they're trans tattoos, if not... it's not really worth mentioning), so I guess you can grab a guildie, throw them a tower shield and see about working around that too. Added perk being that if monks parry you, they don't smash a shield in your face unlike everyone else. Yes, psymet forcedsymmetry can be a pain, but it all depends... if you're dishing out enough wounding to hit a tendon, for instance, on the second swing you'll have one leg at tendon level and the other one swing away from it. Some monks swear by it, but if it's not properly managed (Which is often the case) it can actually make things worse for the monk rather than better.
The problem with part A is they can parry/stance the legs/head and not worry about arms entirely.
We tested Kata deflect a while back though, it affects the entire upper body and stacks with tattoo armour (while Kata deflect is up, Monk heads have better wound reduction than a Greathelm) Add that deflect then offers even more protection to a single arm ontop of that, then throw in forced symmetry there is never a point to attacking Monk arms as a Knight, 98 wounds on a jab with 585 precision and L3 wounding runes, wooo.
On legs, it's a simple case of parry/stance, and the fact that while you're failing to tendon them (and they're curing one leg in a single application while protecting the other) in your balance is moot when their next attack is hindering your offence. Cavalier heft works around this somewhat but it's just throwing more RNG into the bucket for Knights. I'm fine with class counters but the gulf in skill (and luck) required in a Monk vs Knight fight is so horribly stacked in the Monk's favour that it has no concept of balance.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Deflect mimics truehsield. Even trueshield is a massive reduction of wounds on the arm it is used. Without deflect at all we would actually take more wounds than most people. That said, I would really like to expand skills to be weaker against warriors and have more general use. Deflect for instance reducing some general damage in exchange for less impact on wounding.
Forcedsymm is not commonly used, not in the least.
Compaing "skill gulfs" between monks and warriors makes no more sense than warriors and wiccans. Warriors are perhaps the only attrition design left, monks are affliction oriented, and most classes are burst.
Mugwumps break Nhilists more then anything else, something I've been drumming about since I became one.
The past 10? years of IRE, in just about every class I've ever been in, speed will always win 1v1.
If you were a Knight in Achaea/Aet that wasn't a Rajamalan, you were doing something wrong.
If you were an Occult/Indorani that was something other then Raja, Grook or (Aet only) Kelki, you were doing something wrong.
If you were a Snake that wasn't a Rajamalan, you were definitely doing something wrong.
If you are a Guardian/Wiccan class and you are not a Mugwump, you are definitely doing it wrong.
I would -love- to get beyond this.
As someone who has been more a combatant in a different IRE, and isn't so much experienced here (and is waiting for the Overhaul to get deeper into this combat,) I agree.
I really, really think that balance/equilibrium recovery bonuses/maluses specific to certain races really unbalance combat in favor of or against those races, and are something that should be removed from the game entirely. To represent their speed as appropriate to the lore, just make their dexterity scores lower or higher, or give them some other ability that represents more or less the same thing. IMO, this would help a lot for making different races more viable for certain classes, in addition to the new stats.
I agree with the above comment, something thing I'd like to see (maybe this was addressed already) is to have every race be able to play as every class in at least one sort of build. I've always wanted to try bard but it has never really panned out, in part because tae'dae are seemingly ineffective as bards in almost every regard.
2
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
Anything that brings Winnae back is a good thing!
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
Speaking of Guardian Archetypes, as im sure everyone here will agree, as Lusternia has grown and popped out more classes, the older versions of archetypes couldnt really compare to the fast-paced shiney new classes.
Examples, comparing an Illuminati to an MD or Celestine.
With the remakes, if we could perhaps reproduce that old flavor back into several of the old kits, that would be pretty cool. Example, both the celestines and the nihilists have awfully boring bashing abilities. Point symbol, shoot gout of fire at target. Demonweb nihilist: Shoot strings at target that have an insanely long text.
Perhaps if we could mix it up by further developing upon the concept of making a deep pact with one of the Supernals/Demonlords. It would bring them a bit up to par with how illuminati/Institute have such personal uniqueness in their skills.
PK wise, Nihi's are in a very solid place. Bashing wise, however, they are the worst class in game, terrible damage selection mixed with poor mitigation.
Especially Viscanti Nihilists, you're penalised for choosing your organisation race.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Kio, the thing wasn't that their POWER levels are different, it was that their bashing attacks are incredibly boring, flavor-wise, compared to other guilds. Like, you could change just the text on their attacks and Arcanis' issue would be addressed. He thinks that the new guilds are a lot SHINIER, which they are, since I think IRE's text-quality for Lusternia writing has gone up as the game has progressed.
Kio, the thing wasn't that their POWER levels are different, it was that their bashing attacks are incredibly boring, flavor-wise, compared to other guilds. Like, you could change just the text on their attacks and Arcanis' issue would be addressed. He thinks that the new guilds are a lot SHINIER, which they are, since I think IRE's text-quality for Lusternia writing has gone up as the game has progressed.
Kio, the thing wasn't that their POWER levels are different, it was that their bashing attacks are incredibly boring, flavor-wise, compared to other guilds. Like, you could change just the text on their attacks and Arcanis' issue would be addressed. He thinks that the new guilds are a lot SHINIER, which they are, since I think IRE's text-quality for Lusternia writing has gone up as the game has progressed.
Yes exactly, it isnt that they are weak in mechanics, far from it, it is simply that the mechanics themselves of older classes are dull and outdated compared to the mouthwatering flavor in new classes like Illuminati and Institute.
Which brings me back to my point of Deeppacts. Imagine if a Nihilist or Celestine was further enhanced/changed depending on their deeppact? The concepts would be deliciously wonderful. Imagine a Nihilist that was transformed into a Torture Devotee, walking around with hooks lashing out left and right, or perhaps a Wrath devotee that can scorch and sear their target into submission. (Maybe getting a bit carried away but you get the drift).
I was replying to Morkarion, the flavour text could be changed anytime really. It is a message, they could probably change all of them in under 2 minutes.
In fact.... if you idea it (I would say bug but they would tell me messages arent bugs) with a proposed solution (or post it to simple ideas, even better) it might show up rather quickly. Not saying we have seen crazy reaction times from @Iosai.... but she has been known to get things done in under an hour.
Right now, I want to get something along the lines that we had drafted in the design stage coded so you guys can see the direction we want to go before getting into details because I think such a discussion before even seeing how it works would be counterproductive. Not to mention that it's easy to become overwhelmed with so many debates that we end up spinning our wheels and not knowing what direction to go. Plus, I'm having heated discussions with coders and admin right now on finalizing even the basic design concepts that bringing it to the forums would simply put the project in a two front war which could derail it.
I haven't read this whole thread so someone else may have said this but I'll tell you this as an envoy who has served for a reasonably long length of time (although not as long as @Xenthos) and written a number of reports.
I'm really happy to see you're talking about sharing design ideas with us. I think this is one critical element we've been missing as envoys is what the intent behind the different skills are and what sort of balance you're hoping to achieve. For example:
Should all guilds have roughly even chances of beating all other guilds in 1v1 combat?
How much impact should guilds have on group combat?
Should some archetypes naturally beat other archetypes?
Should some guilds naturally beat specific other guilds?
Should all guilds in an archetype be roughly equal in effectiveness in 1v1 and group combat?
Should some tertiary choices be dramatically more effective than others in certain guilds?
All of those questions (as far as I know) have not been answered for our current ideal in the game and may need new answers for this overhaul. I am confident that if you provide us with abstract intentions that the envoys and playerbase at large could adjust the actual mechanics of the game to accomplish what you want. The other things that would be helpful to know in this is what guilds intended strengths and weaknesses are. Right now we have these implicitly drawn from the actual AB files. For example Night counters Druidry because of Brumetower. Harmony prism counters the tahtetso instakill among other things. Foresight counters any class that relies on a command stack, etc. etc. As envoys it's difficult to tell if the skills are the way they are because that's the intention for the guild or if they need to be changed for the sake of balance (that being tricky because it's defined by all the questions I asked above).
Basically, if we had some document that said that Night is intended to counter Druidry or that Harmony prism is intended to counter what it does then we could quit wondering if these skills need to be changed and focus on the avenues the admin want us to take with our skills. This happens even on the individual skill level, for example if I knew that bullcharge was intended as a chasing tool (which I've essentially learned based on the solution picked for my recent report) I could've made a very specific and detailed report about its cost and benefit as a chasing tool instead of making a general report covering all of its potential aspects.
I could go on and on about this but I'll stop myself. I may have not presented my ideas as clearly as I would've hoped, let me know if you have any questions.
In my opinion, Lusternian combat today has many of such "counters" not because they are mechanically conceived, planned and the designed with that end in mind, but rather, just as a natural result of the cobbling together of general RP-based ideas. The problem of command stack reliant classes and the few abilities that have an unfair impact on them is one such example, highlighted by the Chemantics release. The original reactives as they were conceived and implemented were unlikely to have gone through the planning stage as a specific counter to command-stack classes. I'm taking a guess in the dark, but I don't think the designer went "I want this new class to have a specific defence against command-stack classes, and only them, so I have these few ideas... and let's pick this one!" Instead, they probably went, "This new mechanic can give the class a minor defensive benefit and is interesting, and it also fits the RP to boot, let's go with it."
Or at least, I hope that is the case.
The same probably applies to the rest of those questions, some archetypes have little chances of beating a specific other archetype in combat probably not because the designer went, "We want a fight between these two classes to turn out this specific way, with this amount of handicap to this archetype... etc", but rather because the designing phase went, "It would make sense that this new archetype will fare better against this type of attack, so let's give their mechanics a slight bias toward this kind of mechanic" or something along those lines. Those little bits and pieces of "suitability" end up compounding with each other until we have a situation where one archetype, because they use the kind of attack that the new archetype is thematically stronger against, have a mechanically unfair experience in combat. Knights vs Monks is probably the most egregrious example, but smaller scale versions of this pepper the Lusternian combatscape between certain guilds as well.
In short, the problem is not that the administration has been keeping the design for such disadvantages quiet, but rather that these disadvantages were never planned in entirety during combat design, but is reliant on gut feeling and supposed should-be-this-way themes, and there is nothing for them to tell us, even if they want to. The solution to this is very simple: to incorporate such considerations into the planning and design from the very start. If a certain archetype IS supposed to have an unfair mechanical disadvantage against another specific archetype, then rules and regulations should be set down clearly as to how far this disadvantage is supposed to go, and the caveats that come attached, if any.
I find the idea that an archetype might be weaker mechanically and thematically against another archetype a worthwhile one that will encourage a more strategic and tactical implementation of combat, but not in its current incarnation, where such disadvantages are arbitrary and implemented on a first-come-first-serve, case-by-case basis. If such relationships between archetypes is to be implemented, then let it be an actual ecosystem that balances itself with clear numerical rules and guidelines, and have such disadvantages be made up for by pros-and-cons in a calculated manner. Like the way scissors will always beat cloth, and will always be weak to stone.
not that long ago I had made mention here about 'updating' the nihilist and celestine kit to make them more interesting and diverse. I have now posted an idea of the concept I was saying upon the Ideas forum. In the case anyone is interested, here is the link.
I would like to reiterate that the cost of fully committing to this project is pretty much putting all other development on hold for up to a year. Would it still be desirable?
I think this is a great time investment. It will, of course, depend on the outcome. However, if enough people are actively testing in the arena it will come out good I think. We all know how many in Lusternia like to test. I specifically like that combat will be made easier for young ones to enter into and understand, with the idea that high level combat will still be available for those more seasoned. I think low level combat entry is a big issue.
My only question right now would be, and it may have been answered and I might have missed it, but since everything is basically being overhauled(ie. combat, skills, artifacts etc...), is there talks of possible one-time or a stretch of time where it would be possible to trade in or be reimbursed for artifacts that we have(ie, runes, gems etc) that are specifically used for combat?
I realize it is not a requirement by any means, and that the rules state that things can change and we are not necessarily entitled to a refund. It would be nice though to have the ability to shift investments towards a new direction since the game would be changing so drastically.
It bothers me that lots of folk are saying they're excited for the overhaul because it will make it easier for new players to get into combat. While I admit that no one actually knows what the overhaul entails outside of the admin, unless there's some major common skill reshuffling (please, admin, please either lower the cost of things like tumble, focus mind, and focus spirit), breaking into combat will still require a pretty hefty investment. Honestly, I think the investment requirement for Lusternia is the biggest combat limiter, not the complexity.
I really hope the admin figure out a way to make the skills easier to obtain or not required at all.
I also don't really know how much complexity I want to see go. As far as I see it, so long as we have as many guilds as we do, Lusternia's going to be a fairly complicated game unless you throw away what makes them unique. Though in the current game, there's a lot that can (and should) easily be thrown out.
I agree that initial costs would help a lot with newbies though. There are too many who pretty much have to get told that until they trans this or that, they're going to be fodder or they won't be able to kill anyone 1v1 or whatever the circumstance, and I imagine that to be very discouraging.
Lowering some essential skills to more attainable levels will help a lot. Even converting some of them to base commands might save things (like magic list, potion list, pipe list).
I just hope whatever simplifications happen, there's still the existence of a significant skill gap (as in the few places it still exists right now). Being able to practice and constantly improve your methods and technique is what keeps combat fun and refreshing. That's honestly why I hope that if significant changes to warrior do happen, that it's still a challenging and engaging class to play.
Comments
And yes, kata forms stop dead at a disabled limb, so technically their offense is in a much worse situation than a warrior in where you can break a single limb and stop three attacks from happening at once rather than just one in the case of say blademaster. Just got to pay attention to the way your opponent fights and target the limb that is primary in their forms. And really, the argument that they can continue attacking even though they're using a 2H weapon and have an arm broken isn't really the point here. They don't do full damage/wounding/afflictions with each tahto/chain attack, they do roughly 1/4 of their damage/wounding and 1/3 of their afflicting on that balance whereas an AL/Cav/PB do their full damage/wounding/afflicting on each attack.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Kata deflect only protects one side, in much the same way a shield does for everyone else. Tattoo armour gives them a bit lower physical protection than plate (if they're trans tattoos, if not... it's not really worth mentioning), so I guess you can grab a guildie, throw them a tower shield and see about working around that too. Added perk being that if monks parry you, they don't smash a shield in your face unlike everyone else. Yes, psymet forcedsymmetry can be a pain, but it all depends... if you're dishing out enough wounding to hit a tendon, for instance, on the second swing you'll have one leg at tendon level and the other one swing away from it. Some monks swear by it, but if it's not properly managed (Which is often the case) it can actually make things worse for the monk rather than better.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
We tested Kata deflect a while back though, it affects the entire upper body and stacks with tattoo armour (while Kata deflect is up, Monk heads have better wound reduction than a Greathelm) Add that deflect then offers even more protection to a single arm ontop of that, then throw in forced symmetry there is never a point to attacking Monk arms as a Knight, 98 wounds on a jab with 585 precision and L3 wounding runes, wooo.
On legs, it's a simple case of parry/stance, and the fact that while you're failing to tendon them (and they're curing one leg in a single application while protecting the other) in your balance is moot when their next attack is hindering your offence. Cavalier heft works around this somewhat but it's just throwing more RNG into the bucket for Knights. I'm fine with class counters but the gulf in skill (and luck) required in a Monk vs Knight fight is so horribly stacked in the Monk's favour that it has no concept of balance.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
I really, really think that balance/equilibrium recovery bonuses/maluses specific to certain races really unbalance combat in favor of or against those races, and are something that should be removed from the game entirely. To represent their speed as appropriate to the lore, just make their dexterity scores lower or higher, or give them some other ability that represents more or less the same thing. IMO, this would help a lot for making different races more viable for certain classes, in addition to the new stats.
Examples, comparing an Illuminati to an MD or Celestine.
With the remakes, if we could perhaps reproduce that old flavor back into several of the old kits, that would be pretty cool. Example, both the celestines and the nihilists have awfully boring bashing abilities. Point symbol, shoot gout of fire at target. Demonweb nihilist: Shoot strings at target that have an insanely long text.
Perhaps if we could mix it up by further developing upon the concept of making a deep pact with one of the Supernals/Demonlords. It would bring them a bit up to par with how illuminati/Institute have such personal uniqueness in their skills.
Especially Viscanti Nihilists, you're penalised for choosing your organisation race.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Which brings me back to my point of Deeppacts. Imagine if a Nihilist or Celestine was further enhanced/changed depending on their deeppact? The concepts would be deliciously wonderful. Imagine a Nihilist that was transformed into a Torture Devotee, walking around with hooks lashing out left and right, or perhaps a Wrath devotee that can scorch and sear their target into submission. (Maybe getting a bit carried away but you get the drift).
Change nil fire to 50% excor/50% fire, would be a start. Ideally a redesign of Viscanti would help too, but that requires more work.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
I'm really happy to see you're talking about sharing design ideas with us. I think this is one critical element we've been missing as envoys is what the intent behind the different skills are and what sort of balance you're hoping to achieve. For example:
All of those questions (as far as I know) have not been answered for our current ideal in the game and may need new answers for this overhaul. I am confident that if you provide us with abstract intentions that the envoys and playerbase at large could adjust the actual mechanics of the game to accomplish what you want. The other things that would be helpful to know in this is what guilds intended strengths and weaknesses are. Right now we have these implicitly drawn from the actual AB files. For example Night counters Druidry because of Brumetower. Harmony prism counters the tahtetso instakill among other things. Foresight counters any class that relies on a command stack, etc. etc. As envoys it's difficult to tell if the skills are the way they are because that's the intention for the guild or if they need to be changed for the sake of balance (that being tricky because it's defined by all the questions I asked above).Basically, if we had some document that said that Night is intended to counter Druidry or that Harmony prism is intended to counter what it does then we could quit wondering if these skills need to be changed and focus on the avenues the admin want us to take with our skills. This happens even on the individual skill level, for example if I knew that bullcharge was intended as a chasing tool (which I've essentially learned based on the solution picked for my recent report) I could've made a very specific and detailed report about its cost and benefit as a chasing tool instead of making a general report covering all of its potential aspects.
I could go on and on about this but I'll stop myself. I may have not presented my ideas as clearly as I would've hoped, let me know if you have any questions.
Or at least, I hope that is the case.
The same probably applies to the rest of those questions, some archetypes have little chances of beating a specific other archetype in combat probably not because the designer went, "We want a fight between these two classes to turn out this specific way, with this amount of handicap to this archetype... etc", but rather because the designing phase went, "It would make sense that this new archetype will fare better against this type of attack, so let's give their mechanics a slight bias toward this kind of mechanic" or something along those lines. Those little bits and pieces of "suitability" end up compounding with each other until we have a situation where one archetype, because they use the kind of attack that the new archetype is thematically stronger against, have a mechanically unfair experience in combat. Knights vs Monks is probably the most egregrious example, but smaller scale versions of this pepper the Lusternian combatscape between certain guilds as well.
In short, the problem is not that the administration has been keeping the design for such disadvantages quiet, but rather that these disadvantages were never planned in entirety during combat design, but is reliant on gut feeling and supposed should-be-this-way themes, and there is nothing for them to tell us, even if they want to. The solution to this is very simple: to incorporate such considerations into the planning and design from the very start. If a certain archetype IS supposed to have an unfair mechanical disadvantage against another specific archetype, then rules and regulations should be set down clearly as to how far this disadvantage is supposed to go, and the caveats that come attached, if any.
I find the idea that an archetype might be weaker mechanically and thematically against another archetype a worthwhile one that will encourage a more strategic and tactical implementation of combat, but not in its current incarnation, where such disadvantages are arbitrary and implemented on a first-come-first-serve, case-by-case basis. If such relationships between archetypes is to be implemented, then let it be an actual ecosystem that balances itself with clear numerical rules and guidelines, and have such disadvantages be made up for by pros-and-cons in a calculated manner. Like the way scissors will always beat cloth, and will always be weak to stone.
http://forums.lusternia.com/discussion/987/expanding-upon-the-paths-of-nihilism-celestialism
I really hope the admin figure out a way to make the skills easier to obtain or not required at all.