Painn wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 3:08 AMSo here is a thought...
How about breaking the mold on worthless specs that absolutely nobody even sub specs in?
Enchantment enchanters comes to mind. Throw something unique in the line.
Forlornhope wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 3:45 AMpart of me thinks of the chanter enchantment line and thinks, should just move the only thing in there people would want and make it a baseline spell i.e. the damage add. It would basically make it like the da for theurgs/shams. Although, I would prefer your general idea and make these spec lines more viable like they did with the wizzie's earth line. I am just not exactly sure how feasible or realistic that would be this late in the game.
Blitze wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 2:23 PMUseless for RvR
(Many of these are useless cos other lines are better)
—-Alb—-
Smite Cleric
Ice/fire Wizard
Matter Sorc
Slash/thrust/crush Reaver
2hnd Arms
Crossbow Arms
Paladin (all)
—-Hib—-
Enchantment Ench
Nature Druid
Blade/blunt Bard
Blade/blunt Warden
—-Mid—-
Sword/axe Skald
Sword/axe Thane
Summoning SM
Sword/axe Savage
Blitze wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 2:23 PMUseless for RvR
(Many of these are useless cos other lines are better)
.....
Blitze wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 2:23 PMUseless for RvR
(Many of these are useless cos other lines are better)
—-Alb—-
Smite Cleric
Ice/fire Wizard
Matter Sorc
Slash/thrust/crush Reaver
2hnd Arms
Crossbow Arms
Paladin (all)
—-Hib—-
Enchantment Ench
Nature Druid
Blade/blunt Bard
Blade/blunt Warden
—-Mid—-
Sword/axe Skald
Sword/axe Thane
Summoning SM
Sword/axe Savage
Painn wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 3:08 AMSo here is a thought...
How about breaking the mold on worthless specs that absolutely nobody even sub specs in?
Enchantment enchanters comes to mind. Throw something unique in the line.
gruenesschaf
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 8:16 AMFrom a nerf / buff point of view you're right and enchanting ench, summoning sm, matter sorc and many more specs for more classes should be buffed in general as they are just useless.
However, early on we decided to use 1.65 as the baseline with changes from there, those changes include primarily QoL, hybrid viability (be it via nnf ras or explicit buffs) and some mechanic changes, actual class changes other than some number tweaking were not really done aside from early on, mostly in beta.
A core assumption was and still is if a class has a viable spec it's fine and doesn't need buffs to other specs, if it doesn't something should be buffed so that it has something viable. In these cases, just like with the wizard, new abilities would be required as just number tweaking wouldn't cut it in those lines.
The reason for that is pretty simple: in 1.65 almost all classes had only one, maybe two viable specs and hence if you saw a certain class you could be reasonably sure what to expect and even without knowing the class you could be reasonably sure what kind of group compositions you are likely to encounter as only a few were viable and you can be reasonably sure that all groups will have certain core components like 2 healer + skald + shaman, 2 druids + bard, 2 clerics + minst + sorc and you will find only very few exceptions to that.
All of that combined limits the amount of abilities you are likely to use or to encounter in rvr and that is basically the core property we want to keep from 1.65. Personally to me, nothing else about 1.65 is worth preserving as that is what defines the classic feeling, everything else, even the map doesn't matter compared to the amount of abilities and the abilities thrown around.
Changes to certain abilities are perfectly fine for the most part, especially if the changed ability still shares the core intention with the one that has been replaced, a good example here would be most of the updated ras. However, introducing entirely new things is a bit different.
Then we have nerfs, here it's important to understand that, with the exception of stealthers, we only balance classes for group combat. It's just not worth it to even try it for solo and it's not worth it to do it for zerg / keep fights, the exception to the latter would be individual abilities that have too much of an impact there where the nerfs can be limited to that style of gameplay. PvE changes are handled the same way as the zerg changes: Usually not done for an entire class but certain abilities and limited to be a pve only change with pretty much only the feather group content being considered.
With that said, is the minstrel charm and bd rupt stupid? Yes. But the required minstrel nerf, charm removal no longer breaking cc on the pet, is likely too much but would be the only nerf worth considering. Bds, no idea, the core concept is pretty stupid but it's the core concept that is problematic same as animist / necro, making the instant resist debuff no longer rupt would be pretty drastic but is also the only thing worth considering.
gruenesschaf
joshisanonymous wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 2:24 PMThanks for this in depth explanation of your approach to balance. I'm sure you don't like to openly explain these things in part because the obvious follow up questions could lead to a constant barrage of things that you need to defend against, but I'm really wondering what exactly would be too much about changing minstrel charm so that releasing pets no longer broke CC on pets. It's really hard to see how this breaks the viability of the minstrel in a group setting. I mean, their job is to provide speed, backup CC, demezzing, and interrupts in a group, all of which they would still excel at if it was possible to CC their pets, especially since they could still clear mezzes from the pets by casting a demez.
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 2:48 PMThe primary purpose of the minstrel in group combat is to rupt, you can't rupt while cc'd and basically being cc immune and juggling the rupt while avoiding getting the pet killed is the thing the minstrel has going for it. The charm cc removal is also one of the reasons why the minstrel didn't receive det and not having charm release break cc on the pet would severely limit that aspect leaving you with something that has a shortish range or long range but super long cast rupt, doesn't do damage and can be somewhat easily cc'd for a long time with a bit of coordination.
ExcretusMaximus wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 3:14 PMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 2:48 PMThe primary purpose of the minstrel in group combat is to rupt, you can't rupt while cc'd and basically being cc immune and juggling the rupt while avoiding getting the pet killed is the thing the minstrel has going for it. The charm cc removal is also one of the reasons why the minstrel didn't receive det and not having charm release break cc on the pet would severely limit that aspect leaving you with something that has a shortish range or long range but super long cast rupt, doesn't do damage and can be somewhat easily cc'd for a long time with a bit of coordination.
So it's okay for a Skald, who has the exact same role in every way but demezz, but not for the Minstrel? How does that make sense? Minstrels have all the tools a Skald has, with the added benefit of a spammable interrupt in flute mez, plus a pet. Skalds have no problem doing their job without a pet, why does a Minstrel need a CC-immune pet to fulfill the same role? If your argument is that they don't have Determination like a Skald, then give them Determination and fix the pet. No class should be able to stick a pet on someone at the beginning of the fight and never have to worry about that someone again, effectively making every engagement a 7v8 -- especially in the realm that already has the advantage of the most-wanted classes all having pets (Sorc, Mini, Cab, Thuerg). The typical Alb groups have 13 members when you take pets into account.
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 8:16 AMThe reason for that is pretty simple: in 1.65 almost all classes had only one, maybe two viable specs and hence if you saw a certain class you could be reasonably sure what to expect and even without knowing the class you could be reasonably sure what kind of group compositions you are likely to encounter as only a few were viable and you can be reasonably sure that all groups will have certain core components like 2 healer + skald + shaman, 2 druids + bard, 2 clerics + minst + sorc and you will find only very few exceptions to that.
All of that combined limits the amount of abilities you are likely to use or to encounter in rvr and that is basically the core property we want to keep from 1.65. Personally to me, nothing else about 1.65 is worth preserving as that is what defines the classic feeling, everything else, even the map doesn't matter compared to the amount of abilities and the abilities thrown around.
Changes to certain abilities are perfectly fine for the most part, especially if the changed ability still shares the core intention with the one that has been replaced, a good example here would be most of the updated ras. However, introducing entirely new things is a bit different.
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 2:48 PMjoshisanonymous wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 2:24 PMThanks for this in depth explanation of your approach to balance. I'm sure you don't like to openly explain these things in part because the obvious follow up questions could lead to a constant barrage of things that you need to defend against, but I'm really wondering what exactly would be too much about changing minstrel charm so that releasing pets no longer broke CC on pets. It's really hard to see how this breaks the viability of the minstrel in a group setting. I mean, their job is to provide speed, backup CC, demezzing, and interrupts in a group, all of which they would still excel at if it was possible to CC their pets, especially since they could still clear mezzes from the pets by casting a demez.
The primary purpose of the minstrel in group combat is to rupt, you can't rupt while cc'd and basically being cc immune and juggling the rupt while avoiding getting the pet killed is the thing the minstrel has going for it. The charm cc removal is also one of the reasons why the minstrel didn't receive det and not having charm release break cc on the pet would severely limit that aspect leaving you with something that has a shortish range or long range but super long cast rupt, doesn't do damage and can be somewhat easily cc'd for a long time with a bit of coordination.
inoeth wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 3:04 PMyou ever fought a slash reaver? actually pretty strong!
and some specs are indeed viable for pve^^
opossum12 wrote: ↑Sat 13 Jun 2020 1:13 PMI felt like Gruenes' answer was pretty reasonable, not sure why you are pulling conspiracy theories into the mix.
If a classic feeling is what they are going for, them for sure you can't follow broadsword's approach to the game, which has been to revamp classes/specs to have all spec lines of every class be viable.
That leads to million of different group compositions and class specs, but it is definitely not classic as every revamp adds abilities. If you take live as an example, it is very difficult for a casual player with limited experience to actually perform well, just because of everything you need to learn and master.
Also, revamping entire spec lines will always screw balance, which better and more dedicated players will take advantage of and abuse while more casual players get frustrated and leave.
This server is definitely more casual friendly and a huge differentiator from Live daoc. The population numbers (higher on phx) definitely gives them the benefit of the doubt.
Bradekes wrote: ↑Sat 13 Jun 2020 2:36 PMopossum12 wrote: ↑Sat 13 Jun 2020 1:13 PMI felt like Gruenes' answer was pretty reasonable, not sure why you are pulling conspiracy theories into the mix.
If a classic feeling is what they are going for, them for sure you can't follow broadsword's approach to the game, which has been to revamp classes/specs to have all spec lines of every class be viable.
That leads to million of different group compositions and class specs, but it is definitely not classic as every revamp adds abilities. If you take live as an example, it is very difficult for a casual player with limited experience to actually perform well, just because of everything you need to learn and master.
Also, revamping entire spec lines will always screw balance, which better and more dedicated players will take advantage of and abuse while more casual players get frustrated and leave.
This server is definitely more casual friendly and a huge differentiator from Live daoc. The population numbers (higher on phx) definitely gives them the benefit of the doubt.
Not to rag on gruens or the server, it's their server and I do enjoy playing here. That said, this is not a classic server and they've already adjusted so much of the balance on here. Having more options and ways to enjoy a game should be encouraged. I hate cookiecutter ideas and being rollercoatered into a one way ride.
And they could adjust the gimpest or obviously underpowered specs without breaking balance. They can always revert poor changes. They would bring a lot of people back to the game if they did it right too. I do think they have many more plans but they're taking it slow so people have time to adjust and get comfortable in between changes.
Painn wrote: ↑Thu 4 Jun 2020 3:08 AMSo here is a thought...
How about breaking the mold on worthless specs that absolutely nobody even sub specs in?
Enchantment enchanters comes to mind. Throw something unique in the line.
gruenesschaf
imweasel wrote: ↑Sun 14 Jun 2020 2:46 AMThe devs here think this is not only perfectly fine but actually like to perpetuate this.
It's all in the perfect game design!
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 15 Jun 2020 4:51 PMimweasel wrote: ↑Sun 14 Jun 2020 2:46 AMThe devs here think this is not only perfectly fine but actually like to perpetuate this.
It's all in the perfect game design!
It's neither perfectly fine nor good game design but a compromise had to be made, just like the player base the staff falls somewhere between a camp that cares about classic and a camp that considers 1.65 the worst daoc patch that just happens to be better than the ones that came before it and major changes that affect only a single class via changing their spell lines crosses a line for those leaning more to the former camp.
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑Mon 15 Jun 2020 6:34 PMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 15 Jun 2020 4:51 PMimweasel wrote: ↑Sun 14 Jun 2020 2:46 AMThe devs here think this is not only perfectly fine but actually like to perpetuate this.
It's all in the perfect game design!
It's neither perfectly fine nor good game design but a compromise had to be made, just like the player base the staff falls somewhere between a camp that cares about classic and a camp that considers 1.65 the worst daoc patch that just happens to be better than the ones that came before it and major changes that affect only a single class via changing their spell lines crosses a line for those leaning more to the former camp.
Since the current Phoenix patch state more or less abandons both points of view then why not strive for pure, actual balance?
dbeattie71 wrote: ↑Mon 15 Jun 2020 6:44 PMCadebrennus wrote: ↑Mon 15 Jun 2020 6:34 PMgruenesschaf wrote: ↑Mon 15 Jun 2020 4:51 PMIt's neither perfectly fine nor good game design but a compromise had to be made, just like the player base the staff falls somewhere between a camp that cares about classic and a camp that considers 1.65 the worst daoc patch that just happens to be better than the ones that came before it and major changes that affect only a single class via changing their spell lines crosses a line for those leaning more to the former camp.
Since the current Phoenix patch state more or less abandons both points of view then why not strive for pure, actual balance?
Don’t nerf Minstrels, I won’t get to enjoy the cheese then. 😀
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑Fri 5 Jun 2020 8:16 AMFrom a nerf / buff point of view you're right and enchanting ench, summoning sm, matter sorc and many more specs for more classes should be buffed in general as they are just useless.
However, early on we decided to use 1.65 as the baseline with changes from there, those changes include primarily QoL, hybrid viability (be it via nnf ras or explicit buffs) and some mechanic changes, actual class changes other than some number tweaking were not really done aside from early on, mostly in beta.
A core assumption was and still is if a class has a viable spec it's fine and doesn't need buffs to other specs, if it doesn't something should be buffed so that it has something viable. In these cases, just like with the wizard, new abilities would be required as just number tweaking wouldn't cut it in those lines.
The reason for that is pretty simple: in 1.65 almost all classes had only one, maybe two viable specs and hence if you saw a certain class you could be reasonably sure what to expect and even without knowing the class you could be reasonably sure what kind of group compositions you are likely to encounter as only a few were viable and you can be reasonably sure that all groups will have certain core components like 2 healer + skald + shaman, 2 druids + bard, 2 clerics + minst + sorc and you will find only very few exceptions to that.
All of that combined limits the amount of abilities you are likely to use or to encounter in rvr and that is basically the core property we want to keep from 1.65. Personally to me, nothing else about 1.65 is worth preserving as that is what defines the classic feeling, everything else, even the map doesn't matter compared to the amount of abilities and the abilities thrown around.
Changes to certain abilities are perfectly fine for the most part, especially if the changed ability still shares the core intention with the one that has been replaced, a good example here would be most of the updated ras. However, introducing entirely new things is a bit different.
Then we have nerfs, here it's important to understand that, with the exception of stealthers, we only balance classes for group combat. It's just not worth it to even try it for solo and it's not worth it to do it for zerg / keep fights, the exception to the latter would be individual abilities that have too much of an impact there where the nerfs can be limited to that style of gameplay. PvE changes are handled the same way as the zerg changes: Usually not done for an entire class but certain abilities and limited to be a pve only change with pretty much only the feather group content being considered.
With that said, is the minstrel charm and bd rupt stupid? Yes. But the required minstrel nerf, charm removal no longer breaking cc on the pet, is likely too much but would be the only nerf worth considering. Bds, no idea, the core concept is pretty stupid but it's the core concept that is problematic same as animist / necro, making the instant resist debuff no longer rupt would be pretty drastic but is also the only thing worth considering.
Return to Suggestions or the latest topics