| Author | Content | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
SLAYER |
"S0RCERER""SLAYER"Sorry but I can't see your reply to my suggestions/points there? Taking into consideration the fact I said mages perhaps need more DF PVP (easily done with new system), you kind of ignored the fact that they will have more CON (DF) than they currently would if they were to level normally or do mages end up with more Con at cap than 190? (if they level pure INT) at the moment? Either way it's easy to give them 10-20 more DF points to spend with the new system. The INT suggestion is just an idea and I don't see how it is so ridiculous to give a weapon with say increased speed but require a certain INT, it would bring about more diversity.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLAYER"][quote="S0RCERER"][quote="SLAYER"]Sorry but I can't see your reply to my suggestions/points there?[/quote]
Oh? I thought it was obvious that it needn't be said.
Devil mages already do a lot of damage to other Devils, their relative power vs Melee devils will reduce as their survivability will reduce with the changes, damage output will remain high but will never cast and die in 2 hits.
Devils mages can tank well in RvR but can't kill anything due to the AT/DF/MA/MD% change "fix" at wotw, this change would make them do less damage than they do today and also be easier to kill.
If the changes are being implemented due to punching, there are less than 5 people who have punched to any significant degree that could be addressed individually rather than effectively wiping Dsoma.
Your suggestions, such as making melee gear require INT goes to show how ridiculous this proposed change is, if you cannot see how my reply relates to your suggestions/points that's on you.[/quote]
Taking into consideration the fact I said mages perhaps need more DF PVP (easily done with new system), you kind of ignored the fact that they will have more CON (DF) than they currently would if they were to level normally or do mages end up with more Con at cap than 190? (if they level pure INT) at the moment?
Either way it's easy to give them 10-20 more DF points to spend with the new system.
The INT suggestion is just an idea and I don't see how it is so ridiculous to give a weapon with say increased speed but require a certain INT, it would bring about more diversity.[/quote]
|
#46 2017/01/08 15:30:40 |
|
S0RCERER |
"SLAYER"Taking into consideration the fact I said mages perhaps need more DF PVP (easily done with new system), you kind of ignored the fact that they will have more CON (DF) than they currently would if they were to level normally or do mages end up with more Con at cap than 190? (if they level pure INT) at the moment? STR/DEX/INT/WIS/CON 120 150 240 240 160 Less STR Same DEX Less INT More WIS Less CON Result: Far less defence, magic attack and magic defense. Mages lose out in all meaningful stats. I don't even see what the patch seeks to address. The only forseen problem is the power gap increasing between STR and DEX classes from level 100-105 as DEX is hardcapped at 214, this could be rectified by set stat gains where you could allocate the points yourself. You wouldn't need to break the whole game for 5 levels.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="S0RCERER"][quote="SLAYER"]Taking into consideration the fact I said mages perhaps need more DF PVP (easily done with new system), you kind of ignored the fact that they will have more CON (DF) than they currently would if they were to level normally or do mages end up with more Con at cap than 190? (if they level pure INT) at the moment?
Either way it's easy to give them 10-20 more DF points to spend with the new system.
The INT suggestion is just an idea and I don't see how it is so ridiculous to give a weapon with say increased speed but require a certain INT, it would bring about more diversity.[/quote]
STR/DEX/INT/WIS/CON
120 150 240 240 160
Less STR
Same DEX
Less INT
More WIS
Less CON
Result: Far less defence, magic attack and magic defense.
Mages lose out in all meaningful stats.
I don't even see what the patch seeks to address. The only forseen problem is the power gap increasing between STR and DEX classes from level 100-105 as DEX is hardcapped at 214, this could be rectified by set stat gains where you could allocate the points yourself.
You wouldn't need to break the whole game for 5 levels.[/quote]
|
#47 2017/01/08 15:39:14 |
|
SLAYER |
"S0RCERER""SLAYER"Taking into consideration the fact I said mages perhaps need more DF PVP (easily done with new system), you kind of ignored the fact that they will have more CON (DF) than they currently would if they were to level normally or do mages end up with more Con at cap than 190? (if they level pure INT) at the moment? My bad I thought we all agreed on the debate thread about 8 months ago mages should be given around 190 con. And it really isn't breaking anything, when we can discuss a balance issue like this and have the GMs amend it. I'm all for mages having 190 con. and even a bit more INT.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLAYER"][quote="S0RCERER"][quote="SLAYER"]Taking into consideration the fact I said mages perhaps need more DF PVP (easily done with new system), you kind of ignored the fact that they will have more CON (DF) than they currently would if they were to level normally or do mages end up with more Con at cap than 190? (if they level pure INT) at the moment?
Either way it's easy to give them 10-20 more DF points to spend with the new system.
The INT suggestion is just an idea and I don't see how it is so ridiculous to give a weapon with say increased speed but require a certain INT, it would bring about more diversity.[/quote]
STR/DEX/INT/WIS/CON
120 150 240 240 160
Less STR
Same DEX
Less INT
More WIS
Less CON
Result: Far less defence, magic attack and magic defense.
Mages lose out in all meaningful stats.
I don't even see what the patch seeks to address. The only forseen problem is the power gap increasing between STR and DEX classes from level 100-105 as DEX is hardcapped at 214, this could be rectified by set stat gains where you could allocate the points yourself.
You wouldn't need to break the whole game for 5 levels.[/quote]
My bad I thought we all agreed on the debate thread about 8 months ago mages should be given around 190 con.
And it really isn't breaking anything, when we can discuss a balance issue like this and have the GMs amend it. I'm all for mages having 190 con. and even a bit more INT.
[/quote]
|
#48 2017/01/08 15:41:28 |
|
JARAGOONDOO |
I don't see the point arguing about stat guides for mages or any class.
If it is deemed underpowered (or overpowered) during testing, then it can easily be changed. That's why I like this system; it addresses all long term balance issues by making it so our stats aren't set it stone (as they currently are).
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="JARAGOONDOO"]I don't see the point arguing about stat guides for mages or any class.
If it is deemed underpowered (or overpowered) during testing, then it can easily be changed. That's why I like this system; it addresses all long term balance issues by making it so our stats aren't set it stone (as they currently are).[/quote]
|
#49 2017/01/08 15:47:47 |
|
SLAYER |
"JARAGOONDOO"I don't see the point arguing about stat guides for mages or any class. W'ere just discussing how to perfect the new system :p
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLAYER"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"]I don't see the point arguing about stat guides for mages or any class.
If it is deemed underpowered (or overpowered) during testing, then it can easily be changed. That's why I like this system; it addresses all long term balance issues by making it so our stats aren't set it stone (as they currently are).[/quote]
W'ere just discussing how to perfect the new system :p[/quote]
|
#50 2017/01/08 15:56:28 |
|
ISYLVER [Staff] |
There are only 2 mages with over 160 (laz/monster). The next highest is 135.
|
#51 2017/01/08 15:59:22 |
|
ISYLVER [Staff] |
Con that is
|
#52 2017/01/08 16:01:29 |
|
PATHOLOGIST |
Judging by the stat allocations, we can see that you don't actually think Axers are the problem, so the argument has shifted once again...
The real argument is; "Is the current game unbalanced or broken?" A couple of punch characters are undesirable and so this alleged balance needs to be implemented... Lets have a look; Intheface Pros- Easily tanks hsoma, can do Magmas with ease, takes less damage from dsoma mages. Cons- Useless vs knucklers, axers, swordies, spearmen, archers, cant really pressure any human on his own either. Evil_JR, Prometheus, Wagawaga. Pros- about 8-10 more Str than a non-punch archer, shed-loads more int. Cons- Hundreds more hours to attain - Could be said that this doesn't even need doing just as CON isn't a necessity on hsoma. Lazarus Pros- Can actually participate in PVP and RVR Cons- Takes longer than any other character to get to a point you can even participate in PVP. Other than doing this patch for the sake of it, was there another thing that it was trying to address?
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="PATHOLOGIST"]Judging by the stat allocations, we can see that you don't actually think Axers are the problem, so the argument has shifted once again...
The real argument is;
"Is the current game unbalanced or broken?"
A couple of punch characters are undesirable and so this alleged balance needs to be implemented...
Lets have a look;
Intheface
Pros- Easily tanks hsoma, can do Magmas with ease, takes less damage from dsoma mages.
Cons- Useless vs knucklers, axers, swordies, spearmen, archers, cant really pressure any human on his own either.
Evil_JR, Prometheus, Wagawaga.
Pros- about 8-10 more Str than a non-punch archer, shed-loads more int.
Cons- Hundreds more hours to attain - Could be said that this doesn't even need doing just as CON isn't a necessity on hsoma.
Lazarus
Pros- Can actually participate in PVP and RVR
Cons- Takes longer than any other character to get to a point you can even participate in PVP.
Other than doing this patch for the sake of it, was there another thing that it was trying to address?[/quote]
|
#53 2017/01/08 16:02:28 |
|
ISYLVER [Staff] |
See above posts about my answer to that (ability to change to balance whenever we like). Not sure how to answer it better than that.
Regardless it seems we're at a stalemate. We can't convince you and you can't convince us. |
#54 2017/01/08 16:06:07 |
|
S0RCERER |
"ISYLVER"See above posts about my answer to that (ability to change to balance whenever we like). Not sure how to answer it better than that. Then the changes should be made with only level 100-105 in mind. Hence why stat allocation from level 100 onwards makes far more sense.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="S0RCERER"][quote="ISYLVER"]See above posts about my answer to that (ability to change to balance whenever we like). Not sure how to answer it better than that.
Regardless it seems we're at a stalemate. We can't convince you and you can't convince us.[/quote]
Then the changes should be made with only level 100-105 in mind.
Hence why stat allocation from level 100 onwards makes far more sense.[/quote]
|
#55 2017/01/08 16:06:58 |
|
JARAGOONDOO |
"S0RCERER"Hence why stat allocation from level 100 onwards makes far more sense. Can you explain why you think this is a better idea? You make it sound obvious, but the GM's idea sounds better to me on paper. EDIT: That's a genuine question btw. I don't mean to berate you.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="S0RCERER"]Hence why stat allocation from level 100 onwards makes far more sense.[/quote]
Can you explain why you think this is a better idea? You make it sound obvious, but the GM's idea sounds better to me on paper.
EDIT: That's a genuine question btw. I don't mean to berate you.[/quote]
|
#56 2017/01/08 16:10:21 |
|
PATHOLOGIST |
"ISYLVER"See above posts about my answer to that (ability to change to balance whenever we like). Not sure how to answer it better than that. I want to be convinced. I'm asking what current balance problems do you say which are so brutally damaging that you would wipe Dsoma for?
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="PATHOLOGIST"][quote="ISYLVER"]See above posts about my answer to that (ability to change to balance whenever we like). Not sure how to answer it better than that.
Regardless it seems we're at a stalemate. We can't convince you and you can't convince us.[/quote]
I want to be convinced.
I'm asking what current balance problems do you say which are so brutally damaging that you would wipe Dsoma for?
[/quote]
|
#57 2017/01/08 16:11:18 |
|
ISYLVER [Staff] |
As I said - we feel it does not offer a good enough solution. We appreciate the suggestion but all 3 of the team collectively would rather go with our current method.
|
#58 2017/01/08 16:11:32 |
|
S0RCERER |
"ISYLVER"As I said - we feel it does not offer a good enough solution. We appreciate the suggestion but all 3 of the team collectively would rather go with our current method. How so? What is wrong with allocating stats post 100? |
#59 2017/01/08 16:17:45 |
|
SLAYER |
"ISYLVER"There are only 2 mages with over 160 (laz/monster). The next highest is 135. Interesting, I guess that's why no one would tell me what a capped non punched mage would have. I had access to monster and he was quite high con wise but also punched for a long time.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLAYER"][quote="ISYLVER"]There are only 2 mages with over 160 (laz/monster). The next highest is 135.[/quote]
Interesting, I guess that's why no one would tell me what a capped non punched mage would have. I had access to monster and he was quite high con wise but also punched for a long time.[/quote]
|
#60 2017/01/08 16:18:40 |
Please sign in with one of your characters to reply