Balance Melee?

Feedback, bugs, and general gameplay related discussion.
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Balance Melee?

Postby Shevarash » Thu Nov 06, 2003 6:41 pm

If I had a nickel for every time I read 'melee is broken', 'balance melee' etc, I'd be, well I'd be a billionaire.

Now that the EQ changes are in, let's talk about melee. The first step is identifying the problem - HOW is melee broken?

Let's keep this flame free and constructive, I'm anxious to read your thoughts and address anything that needs addressing.
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Bilraex
Sojourner
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Postby Bilraex » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:00 pm

cleriks only get one attack per round, high lvl cleriks hsould be bale to get more. That is broken
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:03 pm

Now that dice are down on a lot of weapons, that would be a start. (just doesn't seem as if melee will make as much of an impact vs. caster) Warrior double wield isn't that good, either. With some of the eq being lots better, who knows :)
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Postby Todrael » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:29 pm

Problem: Tanks are more dependent on protective spells than their own skills.
Problem: Melee doesn't require much effort or PC skill to use.
Problem: Melee is easier to level, and therefore there are quite a few more people playing it.
Problem: Spells do more damage to a greater number of mobs than melee ever has a chance to do.

I thought hitters were going to be getting a lot more hit/dam with the eq upgrades. I think that's what everyone thought. But instead, people have observed the opposite. Everyone was praying upgraded melee eq would make it worthwhile.

So, my suggestion, upgrade melee eq.
-Todrael Azz'miala, Ravager
Get Toril Guides and Maps at Todrael's Lair
Get Item Stats at TorilEQ
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:41 pm

I was hoping you would ask that shev:)


1. Tanks are completely dependant on casters. I have 99's in all the defensive skills. Doesn't mean one bit of difference, I'm dead in 2 rounds without spells in any kind of serious fight. You tweaked our skills a bit, but it wasn't significant enough to matter. Personally i think I tanked better before those changes went in. Either way, defensive spells still count 1000 times more than defensive skills. You also pretty much banish every warrior to wear a shield all the time when tanking. Make parry the primary defensive stat, and shieldblock the secondary one. Bring our cap on dodge up to like 80. A warrior with 99s in everything and -100 ac and no spells should still tank better than a displaced illusionist or a dscaled enchanter. We don't. Fix it.

2. You're cheap on the AC. Warriors do miniscule damage as it is, considering we need to wear a shield to tank effectively these days. If that wasn't enough, you pretty much have to wear wholebody armor to get to -100 ac. Which is all well and good, but wholebody armor still can only have 2 mods. it takes up 3 slots, it should be able to have 6 mods. Either make wholebody armor capable to give significant hit/dam as well as the AC, or make it easier to get -100 ac with regular armor, sleeves, and greaves.

3. Damage - We can't do it. Even with huge 2handed swords, the best we can get is 8d4 + maybe 35 dam =jack squat, plus we then suck at tanking cuz no shieldblock. With 1hand weapons, its just a joke. I cant kill a warrior mob 5 levels lower than me. Rogues can only do good damage if they sacrifice enough hps to die to one mage spell. There's no such thing as area melee damage, so our single target damage should be more than any mage can do. In the 3 rounds of casting it takes a 50 invoker to do 500 damage to 8 mobs in the room, a level 50 rogue of similar status should be able to do at least twice that much to a single mob, if the mob doesn't block at all. This sounds high, but defensive skills will balance it out and eat alot of that damage. Same goes with rangers. Missile shield is rediculous. If its going to be that effective it needs to be at least 8th circle. Every mob and its sister are missile shielded, whats the point of archery if you cant hit a damn thing with it anyway?

4. Skills - you give away our skills like they're going out of style. Bash and silence should negate casting. Maybe earthquake. But theres a thousand spells that stun, and they stun so much more often then skills like shieldpunch or headbutt do that its comedic. Hell, bashing is like the least effective way to stop casting these days, considering how many mobs are !bash because of their size. There's spells for hide, items for sneak. Is there anything melee can do that can't be done more effectively by a caster? The only thing I can think of is tanking, and shamans have pets that are good for that too, plus who cares if they die.

5. AI is stacked against us - Mobs detect all our skills and AI actively works against them, yet they never know to bash the friggin invoker when he starts casting inferno. Gear the AI to work against the mages the same way it works against melee.

6. Skill use - Hitall should be 2 rounds of lag regardless of how many people you hit. Kick should either do tons more damage, or rangers need a melee skill that does a ton of damage. Rogues have pretty cool skills, probably too many. Take away trip from them and give it to rangers.

7. EQ - You shaft us. We need tons of hps to tank, but none of the hps eq gives hit/dam or ac. We need tons of AC to tank, but none of the AC gear gives hit/dam or hps. We want hitroll and damroll, but to get it we gotta sacrifice the AC and the hps, which we need to tank. Casters only need hps and int/wis, and maybe some con and spellsaves. All their eq has everything they need in abundance. Mages walk around with 1000 hps, full prots, -20 spells and 140 int. I can't get -100 ac and stay above 900 hps and 30/30. Thats not even considering prots or saves. Warriors have to choose between tanking and hitting, and yet mages never have to choose between low memtimes or hps and saves.

8. Damage damage damage - Rogues do more than rangers do more than paladins/antis do more than warriors. None of them do as much as casters. The order is right, its just the difference. A rogue should do a ton of damage. Melee cant area, so no single target spell should do more damage than a rogue can do in the casting time. Rangers should do close to rogue damage. paladins/antis and warriors are so far behind its digusting. Enchanters might do better offense than warriors. They should be behind, and significantly. But not so far behind that their damage is negligible. I'm still stabbing the guy with a sword, and yet the force missile that flew up his ass hurt 10 times more than the 8 foot steel blade i just stabbed him in the chest with.

That's just off the top of my head so ill probably edit this like 10 times. You get the idea though.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:56 pm

Agree with thanuk.
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Thu Nov 06, 2003 8:16 pm

100% agree with Thanuk, he summed it up nicely.
Meatshield
Malia
Sojourner
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 11:04 pm
Location: Eastern Washington State
Contact:

Postby Malia » Thu Nov 06, 2003 8:50 pm

Id have to agree with that 100% Nicely put Thanuk. Maybe more class restrictions on hitter gear so that it cant be used by mages. That way mage hp are still dg'd and hitters are upgraded a bit.
Dugmaren mutters in a surly voice 'Got any new strategy or going to continue with the "throw bodies at them til they get bored"? '

Dranth group-says 'i started drinkin when i found out galzar would be here'

Nerox says 'careful she goes from 0 to bitch in .00000001 seconds'

Mugo ASSOC:: 'ah got it on my gaytimer now :P'
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Thu Nov 06, 2003 8:58 pm

Oh one more thing -

Mob flags - why is it that every level 50+ mob, caster or not, is always flagged warrior as well? I don't think the uberl33t archmage of deathmagik should really be riposting me for 200 hps. If the mob is a mage, its a mage. If its a warrior, its not casting. Only the really, REALLY hard mobs should get dual class status.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Thu Nov 06, 2003 9:28 pm

Ummm..what Thanuk said.
Guw
Sojourner
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:38 pm

Make Con mean something for warriors in melee battle.

Postby Guw » Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:12 pm

Make Con mean something for warriors in melee battle.



I think that the % of wins for a warrior in solo fight (based on PC/ mob relative level) needs to be looked at, and then adjustments made to the warrior skills/damage to set the approx chance of winning.


On average a human warrior in melee battle:

*assuming -100AC, natural hps, and say hitroll/damroll=+20/+20,
*with max defence skill notches for that level,

Firstly:
- for PC warrior level=X fighting a MOB warrior level=X, probablity of win=0.50 (ie. 50% of the time)

Secondly:
- for PC warrior level=X fighting a MOB warrior level=X-5, probablity of win=0.95 (ie. 95% of the time)

Thirdly:
- for PC warrior level=X fighting a MOB warrior level=X+5, probablity of win=0.05 (ie. 5% of the time)


Have a linear (or exponential whatever) chance of victory between these extremes.

So the idea is.. adjust the melee skills until the chance of a win roughly matches this probability of PC warrior winning.



*Here win means killing the opponent with no 'tactics', no fleeing/healing (except natural) or spells/spellups (maybe armor potion only)
*any "warrior race" other than human should improve the chance of winning,
*any "non-warrior race" reduce chance of winning
Yasden
Sojourner
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Postby Yasden » Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:25 pm

Having wrote a rather large document outlining most of these things right after Sojourn3 opened, Thanuk is correct. The two biggest issues I can see on the player level of the melee problem is the fact that defensive spells are > defensive skills, and that there are literally dozens of spells/procs that fulfill our (warriors') jobs as bashers/stunners.

So then comes the next step. How do you fix it? Do you downgrade certain elements? In some regards yes, but punishing eq (proc weapons) isn't the answer, in fact it will only serve to upset others. After playing a warrior for 8 years, I can honestly say that defensive spells (the 4 primarily used for zoning - blur, stone, displace, dragonscales) are the target of the downgrades. Not so much as to render the spells useless, but they should be used as a BONUS to tanking, not the absolute requirement in order to survive a fight (unless you were tanking huge gatehouse fights or somesuch).

As such, I propose several things:

1. Allow tanking classes to achieve an armor class (AC) of lower than -100. It could be based on class and skill level in defense. For example, A warrior with 99 defense could drop to a -150 (just an example) AC while a paladin/anti with the same defense could drop to -130 or so. The same would hold with rangers/dires, whatever. The main point is warriors should be the main tanks in any zone, but any with a high defense skill can benefit from the AC bonus to serve as a tank to some extent if need be.

2. Allow warriors to achieve 99's in all their defensive skills. As of right now there's 2 that don't. Shieldblock (90) and dodge (65).

3. Give warriors a niche other than just rescue. Bash, as Thanuk pointed out, is worthless 85% of the time. Shieldpunch, the same. If we keep the stuns/silences on spells/procs (which we should) then these would still serve as needed. However something highlighting the warrior class itself as a unique role in a group would help redefine the role of a warrior.

For example:

* A protect skill (obtained at level 45) that allows a warrior to select a target to instantly rescue any time a mob switches to it, whether they be client-side lagged or not (i.e. casters with low hitpoints, the resser, etc). It would rely on the rescue skill, of course.
* Another idea would be to give warriors vital strike. After all, they are (supposed) to be weaponmasters and should know all the critical areas where to hit a foe as to deal the most damage.
* Improved parry/riposte skills that only work while a warrior is wielding a twohanded weapon. These would offset the lack of shieldblock skill during tanking, and would allow a warrior to be able to do moderately more damage while still being able to tank well in nonbashing/stunning situations.
* Improved dual wield skill. The 50 it's maxed at right now totally sucks for those who want to do the bladesinger role. It doesn't have to be 99, but something at least that would allow for an occasional 3rd attack maybe once every 10 rounds.
* A third attack skill obtained at level 50 that can give a warrior wielding a single onehanded weapon or twohanded weapon a third attack simply to help improve melee. This skill would not work while dual wielding (or possibly even hasted).
* Fixing the kick skill so that critical kicks land much more often and have an effect like the messages say. I know being kicked in the solar plexus would knock the wind out of me for at least half a minute. It could serve quite well (if you wanted to adjust the size requirements for this) to serve as a temporary (1/2 minute) silence on caster mobs, since they wouldn't be able to speak.

I'm sure there's much more I could post but I'll let others come up with some ideas on this whole topic.

Deathmagnet aka Targsk
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:31 pm

Uh, yup. Thanuk said it pretty well. Bash definately needs to be the #1 caster stopper. I'm all for it going back to room silence and take feeb/sil person away. take away a lot of the effects from spells, or must make them that effect. There are way way too many damage/effect spells out there, and it's just getting insane. Dgrade stone/scale...take out blur. If you don't want to up melee damage on item stats, give us a modifier when fighting a mob. Ie. I do +32 damage to a pc in arena with my gear as it is stated under attributes, but to a mob I would do +32*5 or something to that effect. I'm tired.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:03 pm

Agree Thanuk 100%! Make the tank classes themselves more skillful at doing their job (tanking) and less dependent on spells. Sure make the spells still mean something, but significantly less.

The argument of hit/dam vs hp vs prots/saves is completely valid. ESPECIALLY the bit about the AC. Its a biatch even with an agility in the 90's to attain a -100 ac and still have decent hp/hit/dam/prots/saves etc.

My biggest argument is that yes, melee was already lacking, and we knew this, and yet we STILL downgraded (yes overall) hitter eq. The proof is in the numbers. I would love to see rogues do as much damage as invokers to single targets.

Ultimately it seems as if the warriors are the puppets of the casters.

One thing i do NOT agree with in this thread is giving vital strike or any of these other skills to warriors. The numbers are correct in ratio, just change how the numbers work. And yes, give those poor clerics a second attack at higher levels =P
Osil
Sojourner
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 6:01 am
Location: Honolulu, HI 96813

Postby Osil » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:49 am

I don't think downgrading protective spells would be the answer. That would make mobs hit a ton and just lead to more needless tank deaths. You would have to alter mob damage across the board to get the balance right. The goal the imms should shoot for is to have a maxed out rogue/ranger hit as hard as a single target invoker spell. A warrior should do a bit less but not a whole lot less. I think a few things need to be done to achieve this goal:

1. Bring back haste items and items or ones that gives a permanent globe spell. Haste doesn't seem to be too overpowering in the light of massive nukes flying in all directions. Make it warrior/ranger only if it is too overpowering for rogues. Or give the melee classes more attacks per round. So a 50th warrior will have the potential of 6 attacks 1 handed or 7 with haste or something like that.

2. Also I think stoneskin potions should be available for purchase in certain stores on the mud. Make them moderately expensive (20p?) and War only. This would give a warrior the potential for a little solo work and the ability to do some tanking without spells. Or there should be a shield that casts stoneskin on the warrior similar to how the holy avenger used to work. Or make it usable x-times per day or something. Or make a warrior that is at -150AC have the ability to negate a certain amount of damage (all or nearly all) from each hit for a certain period of time.

3. There should be potions of giant size that could be quested in the mud somewhere. Or you can just have an hard to get item that gives a warrior giant size. This would allow the warrior to bash giants and such. Also you can have a potion or item that gives warrior ghost touch as well so they can bash immaterial things.

4. Bring in 1-handed weapons that auto crit certain mob types. Make a dragonslaying sword actually be great against dragons. Or if that's too buff then just make the weapon do a noticably higher amount of damage to said mobs.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:32 am

Agree with Thanuk for the most part.

Something to add from the perspective of rangers and dires is that ranged combat needs more features. Some of the stuff in the final draft of the proposal has disappeared off the face of the earth, like proc arrows.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:34 am

8)

I disagree with Thanuk. I think bash should be removed from the game entirely, or remove its ability to stop casting and possibly just make it so that it has a chance to abort it, instead. Bash is a ridiculous old artifact spawned forth by muds and never a part of DnD. In DnD, casters can cast spells even while laying on the ground. There is no 'bash' option in DnD. If you want to stop a caster, you have to a)do damage to them while they are casting, b) grapple them c)silence them d)feeblemind them e)stun them, f)paralyze them. So in DnD, practically all the ways of stopping casters fall onto other casters.

As for defensive skills for warriors and other tanks, I think the problem is rooted in the limited ac system. If you switched to a 3.0 style ac system that went up as you improved and lost the stupid ac cap, then you could have tanks that wanted ac gear to improve their tanking instead of hps to just last longer.

If you want people to want stat gear more- then you'll have to make the stats more useful. Constitution is only useful for warriors, since anyone with a con over 75 has their max notch. Dexterity, Strength, and Agility all have affects that people can see when advancing those stats. Int should give arcane spellcasters bonus spell slots, and wisdom for priests. This is where the equipment and system need a decent overhaul- remove the caps on stats and nuke the max stat gear. As it stands now, stuff with normal stat bonuses are pretty weak. They're only used in rare instances where the person didn't roll his character long enough and need a boost in one of the areas. After removing the stat caps and making the stats have more affect on play, people WILL want stat gear instead of just hoarding over hp equipment.
Iyachtu
Staff Member - Coder
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:38 am

Postby Iyachtu » Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:36 am

I'm kind of fond of the D&D spell Improved Haste. It wouldn't significantly improve caster number of melee attacks, but would strengthen the damage of the real melees significantly.
Salen
Sojourner
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Salen » Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:44 am

I would think not downgrading all of the hitter gear would be a start.
Iyachtu
Staff Member - Coder
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:38 am

Re: Balance Melee?

Postby Iyachtu » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:14 am

Shevarash wrote:If I had a nickel for every time I read 'melee is broken', 'balance melee' etc, I'd be, well I'd be a billionaire.

Now that the EQ changes are in, let's talk about melee. The first step is identifying the problem - HOW is melee broken?

Let's keep this flame free and constructive, I'm anxious to read your thoughts and address anything that needs addressing.


Methinks you underestimate what it would be like to have heard one of those phrases TWENTY BILLION times. You'd be insane, is what you'd be. Oh wait... never mind.
Stamm
Sojourner
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Stamm » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:24 am

Since Thanuk made such a worthwhile post I'm going to base my comments as a followup to his.

(And I'm not being sarcastic, he took the words out of my mouth (the thieving bastard I'll kick his teef in!))

1. I completely agree with Thanuk. Spelltanking is where we are now, and it's horrible. A significant downgrade in mob hitter damage, as well as the effectiveness of dragonscales and stoneskin needs to happen. Then we need to see if our skills are actually having an effect or not.

2. Disagree with Thanuk here.

AC is too _easy_ to get. It ranges from 100 to -100(and lower effectively), yet -100 is pretty easy to get. I've been at below -200 AC. And it makes a HUGE difference for mobs at level 50 and below (anything higher and it's spelltank time). Full body armour is way out of whack. It takes 3 slots and gives, what, -75 or more AC? The very best on body, leg and arm wear combined gives, what, -50? And that's good spanky stuff. If you take away everybodies armour class then warriors will have to wear _armour_ rather than poofy silk sleeves or slippers or whatever we wear for hps.

3 Agree here. Have nothing to add.

4 Agree here, I'm just as bitter as him. Casters get what we get, and so do proc'ing weapons too.. :(

5 This would be nice, but I don't think it's that high a priority as the rest of the stuff. But I do agree.

6 Yes, and let me say a bit more. If a warrior is going to say "I will stop rescuing, and I will stop bashing and try to do extra damage with a kick" then that kick should do something worthwhile. I did suggest a while back that it made opponents go 'off balance' and less likely to parry for example.

7 Take our hps away. I don't want to wear hps gear unless it's on a fantastic top level item that's 12 ac, 2 dam, 20 hps. Hps on warrior eq should be rare, and don't do it by flags either. Do it by armour class. If a warrior wants to wear silky sleeves that give him an extra 35 hps then he shouldn't expect said sleeves to stop a demons claw.

8 Rogues should do damage in certain circumstances... circle/stab, backstab, great. But not in straight up melee. Rangers need to get extra attacks, or be able to nullify defences so his hits go in and hit harder. Think of the ranger and his flashing blades, maybe he doesn't swing any more often than the warrior, but he'll slice and dice more.


The most important things, I think for warriors are 1 and 2.

Free us from velvet slippers and billowly cloaks. Free us from dying because we didn't have a fresh dragonscales. Make us feel that we're not just an elemental that can crack jokes on gsay.

And yeah.. mobs are flagged warrior... "It's only a warrior" or "It's not a caster" A warrior mob should be just as feared a sorc mob... but that's not the case atm

As for downgrading our equipment... well, it's all relative. Does it matter if we do 600 damage per round with 40/30 compared to doing 600 damage per round with 40/70?
Izisayyin
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:03 pm

Postby Izisayyin » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:40 am

So, let me see if I understand what Thanuk is asking for correctly.

1. You want melee defensive skills to work better than dragonscales/displace/blur/stone.

2. You want to be able to max your HPs out while at the same time maxing your AC and hr/dr as well.

3. You want to be able to do more damage in a fight than the most powerful damage class in the game.

So, why don't we just roll all the classes into one class and forget this class stuff? Personally, I don't think melees are useless. I think the crap about mages tanking as well as melees is also crap.

Your job is to bash, rescue, and take hits well. Mages do not do this.

Yes, displace can make up for some of the lack of parry/dodge/etc for a mage.

Yes, dragonscales can make up for some of the lack of mage HPs.

There may not be a happy balance in place, but what you're talking about would just be throwing the balance completely over in the other direction.

The solo ability of the illusionist/shaman/enchanter/elementalist is a byproduct of their ability to protect others.

If you need this put more simply:

A troll warrior that is fire embodied, dragonscaled, displaced, hasted, blurred, yada yada is STILL 3x more effective as a tank than a duergar elementalist with the same benedictions.

Your problem seems to lie in the fact that while the warrior is more effective, the duergar is usually "effective enough".

This is a byproduct of the innovativeness of the players, not a lack of balance.

Also, I think about 98% of your complains actually fall on the area builders. The overuse of giant/etc class mobs, the lack of use of proper 'groups' of mobs. The main reason I see warriors as feeling optional, is because when you zone, you typically come up against a small number of mobs at a time, and they are extremely overpowered, giants, dragons, demons, etc, and going up against a group of 15.

Melee types become much more effective when it's say, 15 on 15. In fact, they become essential. Even in fights where one may face only 5-6 mobs, the switch/etc behavior of the casting mobs (which also like to do 400hp a hit, but they're mages, of course) becomes too much, and you need your warriors, your rangers, your dires.

Rogues are a niche class, I won't touch upon them here, but they have an ability which far exceeds that of any other class in this game. I don't think it's fair or right to lump them into this discussion, they should have a discussion of their own if they feel unbalanced.
Vassana
Sojourner
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:09 pm

Postby Vassana » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:55 am

Stamm said:

2. Disagree with Thanuk here.

AC is too _easy_ to get. It ranges from 100 to -100(and lower effectively), yet -100 is pretty easy to get. I've been at below -200 AC. And it makes a HUGE difference for mobs at level 50 and below (anything higher and it's spelltank time). Full body armour is way out of whack. It takes 3 slots and gives, what, -75 or more AC? The very best on body, leg and arm wear combined gives, what, -50? And that's good spanky stuff. If you take away everybodies armour class then warriors will have to wear _armour_ rather than poofy silk sleeves or slippers or whatever we wear for hps

Stamm, I repectfully disagree. I met you once in my most early incarnation on this mud and thought you were absolutley exceptional! but you are thinking like a high level player (which you are) and forgetting a lot of the mud is not. AC is the end all be all for those of us that dont have great eq. Its not easy to get for us. I've never seen -75 armor or full suit armor, unless you pulled it out of your bag to put it on. I spend my time leveling. Often solo killing things that con as Easy. AC is everything as melee is set up now. Thanuk is really right on a lot of levels from a newbies viewpoint. If I can get -100, and lower would help me more then its a god send.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:55 am

Izi .. I really don't think that is what Nuk is saying here ..

He (like most) would love for wariors to go back to being warriors than the interference they now run ...

Think back to before scales ... warriors were the *tank* they took the damage and dealt it out and lived to tell the tale

these days warriors rescue casters so they (the caster/damage class) can beat the shit out of zones .. my mage at lvl 48 with full compliment of AC gear, scaled and fire/coldshielded should not be able to tank better than a warrior .. and in some cases, we can... add a reduce into the mix and we are pretty much unstoppable ..

wariors cannot do that ... and most players seem to want a return to the old days when hit/dam and AC meant something ...
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Ihazim
Sojourner
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ihazim » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:58 am

my suggestion:

1.
give an alternative skill to warriors that will engage a mob and keep it from casting while at the same time inflicting and recieving a greater ammount of damage. it could be tackle or ball rooming dancing for all i care, :p. At the same time, remove bash.

2.
let vital strike for rogues check on intelligence or strength and not just strength, allowing stronger AND weaker raced rogues to vital more.

3.
also for rogues, I know I lostt a lot of hitroll and from what i understand, so did a lot of other rogues. Something needs to be done about rogues hitting NPC's if they're to keep their high damage rolls and keep with the damage stereotype.
Stamm
Sojourner
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Stamm » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:59 am

Quite frankly... no, you do not understand him correctly.

Yes, he wants defensive skills to work better than spellups. And what's wrong with that?

1 I'm pretty sure he's not asking for an upgrade for players against mobs. He's asking for the same as me and the same as tons of warriors and others have asked for. A warriors skills making the difference not the spells making the difference. Have you ever _seen_ a warrior trying to do something without stone/scales?

2 There is no max for hps or hit/dam. What he's saying is, well, something I disagree with, but regardless... what he's saying is that we need to have AC easier to get so that we can wear equipment that does hit/dam and hps so that we can actually feel like we aren't just an elemental.

3 I don't think I saw that anywhere..... I think what we're after is the ability to do any damage whatsoever :P

Mages _can_ do what we do.

Here's a choice.

Have a cleric tanking with other clerics full healing him and an enchanter puitting dragonscales and blur on him, and an illusionist putting displace....

Or have a warrior tanking with clerics full healing.

Which of those two has the highest survival chance? The cleric.

Rescue? Well, depending on the situation elementals and spirit bears etc can replace this. And if they can't, then there's always the old blind, or just flee out and come back in. You only really _need_ rescue when it's a tough zone. Certainly not while xping or anything under level 50.

Bash? Not used so often. A lot of mobs are flagged !bash or made too big because bash is so easy. The vast arsenal of silence/stun spells is the leveller here, used to be that warriors stopped mages getting off spells... not so common now.

What he is talking about _WOULD_ throw out balance... but only if it was done wrongly. Do it right... take with one hand while giving with the other and it'd work.

The complaints don't fall on the area builders. They just don't. The reason why there's wraithed/giant/!bash stuff there is because it's too easy to bash and too easy to silence as it is. Imagine how easy it'd be for those hard caster fights if you could bash every mob in the game?

Melee types aren't that effective 15/15. Invokers doing runs are.
Stamm
Sojourner
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Stamm » Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:06 am

Vassana wrote:Stamm said:

2. Disagree with Thanuk here.

AC is too _easy_ to get. It ranges from 100 to -100(and lower effectively), yet -100 is pretty easy to get. I've been at below -200 AC. And it makes a HUGE difference for mobs at level 50 and below (anything higher and it's spelltank time). Full body armour is way out of whack. It takes 3 slots and gives, what, -75 or more AC? The very best on body, leg and arm wear combined gives, what, -50? And that's good spanky stuff. If you take away everybodies armour class then warriors will have to wear _armour_ rather than poofy silk sleeves or slippers or whatever we wear for hps

Stamm, I repectfully disagree. I met you once in my most early incarnation on this mud and thought you were absolutley exceptional! but you are thinking like a high level player (which you are) and forgetting a lot of the mud is not. AC is the end all be all for those of us that dont have great eq. Its not easy to get for us. I've never seen -75 armor or full suit armor, unless you pulled it out of your bag to put it on. I spend my time leveling. Often solo killing things that con as Easy. AC is everything as melee is set up now. Thanuk is really right on a lot of levels from a newbies viewpoint. If I can get -100, and lower would help me more then its a god send.



Ah... I should have made myself clearer then....


Here's the way I see it.

A struggling warrior will be dressed in plain equipment. He's a tank, he doesn't have the luxury of going for really high end stuff. He knows he needs to get his AC down. So he's going to wear a heavy platemail breastplate.

He's got in the back of his mind that he'd like to get a nicer breastplate, maybe one that will enhance his ability to hit or his damage more.

And when he's a world famous hero, he has slain countless dragons and saved the day time after time.. He'll be wearing a godly breastplate that protects him nicely, and increases his dam and also gives him a few hps.

Examples...

A shiny steel breastplate.

20 ac, -4 dex

An intricately decorated breastplate

21 ac 5 str, 1 hit

A golden glowing breastplate

22 ac 9 dex 2 dam

A holy breastplate made from demon bone

25 ac 30 hps 2 dam

And as for the full body armour...

There are only a few sets available. Most of these _ARE_ very difficult to get hold of and warrant nice stats. (Still not the AC they have, although that does go someway to boost them for taking up 3 slots and sucking)

But there is one that is rarely bid on and is basically just a by product of collecting some quest equipment. It's -75 ac and personally I think it's too good. Even the -100 ac stuff should at the very very most be -55 ac.


Personally I think characters should find it relatively easy to find equipment that lets them 'do their job' in a group.

A ranger can get reasonable hit/dam, as can a rogue and a mage can get reasonable hps.

After that it's small improvements on that, significant to the player perhaps, but not _that_ significant to the group he is in.

Maybe allowing him to do a little bit more.

E.g. a warrior goes from being a tank to being a slightly better tank to being able to do a bit more damage or take a few more kicks. But essentially not a great deal different.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.... I know what I mean.. I just hope everybody else knows what I mean :)


Oh, a little more to add....

I think that no matter how long someone has played there should still be room to be better at their class.

Since warriors tank then aside from hps all we can do is add AC.

And since I've been at around -230 AC I've noticed that beyond -150 or -120 (I don't know where the cut is) there's no difference.

I don't want the limit of my ability to be set well within my horizons. I want to be able to aim to be better without having to resort to wearing cheesy purple silky slippers or billowing sleeves or padded leggings.... I want to strive for those armplates that were blessed by a God when Faerun was young that will protect me just that tiny little bit more....
Izisayyin
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:03 pm

Postby Izisayyin » Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:44 am

Ok, well that cleared a bit up, but..

Stamm wrote:Quite frankly... no, you do not understand him correctly.

Yes, he wants defensive skills to work better than spellups. And what's wrong with that?


What's wrong with that is, then melees no longer need mages. You're simply reversing the role. Atleast for a caster, the spell has to be recast. If you're asking for dodge/parry to be more effective than dragonscales, you're talking about effectively giving them "permanent dragonscales". The problem with that should be obvious to anyone.

Stamm wrote:1 I'm pretty sure he's not asking for an upgrade for players against mobs. He's asking for the same as me and the same as tons of warriors and others have asked for. A warriors skills making the difference not the spells making the difference. Have you ever _seen_ a warrior trying to do something without stone/scales?


A warrior can still do plenty more without stone/scales than my illithid, so perhaps my perspective is skewed. To me, (and perhaps not so much to others), bash, rescue, etc, make a HUGE difference. I can not survive without a warrior doing these things. I don't have any chance. And sadly, in many cases, a warrior can also outdamage me, even with ultrablast.


Stamm wrote:2 There is no max for hps or hit/dam. What he's saying is, well, something I disagree with, but regardless... what he's saying is that we need to have AC easier to get so that we can wear equipment that does hit/dam and hps so that we can actually feel like we aren't just an elemental.


I have the same problem you have as an illithid. There's some scattered +psp and +pow/maxpow stuff out there, but it's all pretty screwy or difficult to obtain (or has been for me, since i've played here). I have to result to +hp eq, because I have no other alternatives.

Stamm wrote:3 I don't think I saw that anywhere..... I think what we're after is the ability to do any damage whatsoever :P


I don't see warriors as a damage class. I see them as a wall. They are there to save those who do the damage. And the warriors I have been with do this for me very well.

Stamm wrote:Mages _can_ do what we do.

Here's a choice.

Have a cleric tanking with other clerics full healing him and an enchanter puitting dragonscales and blur on him, and an illusionist putting displace....

Or have a warrior tanking with clerics full healing.

Which of those two has the highest survival chance? The cleric.

Rescue? Well, depending on the situation elementals and spirit bears etc can replace this. And if they can't, then there's always the old blind, or just flee out and come back in. You only really _need_ rescue when it's a tough zone. Certainly not while xping or anything under level 50.

Bash? Not used so often. A lot of mobs are flagged !bash or made too big because bash is so easy. The vast arsenal of silence/stun spells is the leveller here, used to be that warriors stopped mages getting off spells... not so common now.

What he is talking about _WOULD_ throw out balance... but only if it was done wrongly. Do it right... take with one hand while giving with the other and it'd work.

The complaints don't fall on the area builders. They just don't. The reason why there's wraithed/giant/!bash stuff there is because it's too easy to bash and too easy to silence as it is. Imagine how easy it'd be for those hard caster fights if you could bash every mob in the game?

Melee types aren't that effective 15/15. Invokers doing runs are.


There's a lot covered in this last part, i'm not going to really touch it. What you're talking is more preference here. Given the scenario, anyone *can* do something. I still think warriors do the role they have better than any other class.
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:46 am

Generally agree with Thanuk but there is an issue which is...

How do you balance the fact that increasing tank defensive skills automatically lessens the effectiveness of Rogues and Rangers?

also The balance is off between caster nukes and melee. Area effect spells are the biggest cause of this.

Do gate house as a rogue or ranger (assuming). The mob you are trying to kill (one mob mind you) will die only a little bit before all of the others. When you switch to the next mob they are all at Awful. This means that your efforts effectively added up to taking a mob from pretty hurt to awful in the same time that casters got the mobs from excellent to pretty hurt.

This is a standard group. Not particulary invoker heavy. Not invoker light.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:09 am

Just my .02, but if warriors are already there and actually serving their purpose fine (as someone posted above) why is it that casters, specifically elementalists and druids, and even some illusionists can solo much more and much harder parts of the muds than their melee companions?

Furthermore i don't believe the answer to the situation is reducing mob damage. Yes this would benefit the warriors and their tanking ability, but it would equally enhance the casters, further skewing balance.

Bleh, thats all from me for now
Wuk
Sojourner
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Whiteland, Indiana, USA

Postby Wuk » Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:49 am

I just made a quick glance over some of the posts... But It has always bothered me that Daggers do more Dice of damage than many swords.

I would like to see a more balanced way of setting weapon dice.

2D7 for a longsword,
and GCD is still 3D5 with better +s

I know there are always exeptions, But a longsword should deal about twice as much damage as a dagger.

daggers 1D4
shortsword 1D6
longsword 1D8

A rogue should get his extra damage from skills not get a dagger that deals more or equal damage to a warriors. and on top of that gain bonus damage from backstab and circle.

Warriors are trained where to strike a foe with a weapon just as a rogue is
but we cant seem to match flat weapon stats unless we wield a dagger.
4D4 is the best sword I have now, but my daggers are 3D5, so my sword has one more min/max its just unbalanced IMO



Just my 2 cents...
Izisayyin
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:03 pm

Postby Izisayyin » Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:50 am

Alright, so, in the spirit of the group nature of Toril, and not giving either side the 'advantage', here are my suggestions:

DEFENSE:

Blur, Displacement and Dodge/Defense/Agility:

Rather than upgrading defensive skill, or downgrading the overall effectiveness of blur and displacement, we do this. Make the effectiveness of blur and displacement based both upon the skill/level/etc of the caster, but also the agility, dodge, and defense skills of the affected person.

Thus, a displaced/blur warrior/rogue/ranger/dire will still receive the "current" benefits of displacement and blur, when their skills and the caster's skills are appropriate.

However, for those with lesser dodge/agility/defense skill, the affect of blur/displacement is proportionally lowered, so that the combination of the melee skills with the caster spells are required, not the individual.

Thus, the effectiveness of the melee defense/dodge/agility at high skills/levels but without spells will match that of a high (casting) skilled caster who is displaced, but lacks the defensive skills. This brings the two into balance individually, but the "greatest" benefit is achieved only through the combination.

Dragonscales/Stone and Parry/AC/Constitution:

Again, the exact same system of balance as above, paired with a different set of defensive skills.

A dragonscaled caster with no parry/AC/low con will have the same "toughness" as a warrior with no dragonscales at all, skill levels in the appropriate areas being the same.

Apply the same methodology for all defensive bonus skills and spells, creating appropriate comparisons to balance the two groups of classes.
There will, however, be a problem from this. With the current switch/rescue mechanisms, mages will die with this system. There is no two ways around it. There will effectively be no way to keep the mage from getting hit in combat enough to keep them alive. With lowered effectiveness of stones/scales/displaces/etc, they will die almost immediately upon a switch. This will need consideration, as defense in general may need to be upgraded for them, or the switching mechanisms may need to be tweaked. Or, even better, new skills placed in for melees to pre-empt the switch in the first place.

OFFENSE:

The only way I can offer to bring these in balance is to basically eliminate the ability for casters to do one of two things: either they can no longer do area damage, or they can no longer do single-target damage. However, due to the nature of the beast, I don't see a TRUE necessity for either of these. I think with the defensive changes noted above, it will define a role for the majority of the melee classes, though put them in a lesser role for damage.

One thing I will say, and I have not investigated this, nor do I have the means to.

Over a 5 minute period of fighting, someone should take a ranger, dire raider, invoker, elementalist, warrior, rogue, druid, and psionicst and test their damage output against a single target over this period.

This will need to include all appropriate "downtime". IE: no concessions should be made for the time it takes to mem new spells, regen psp, repoison weapons, etc.

The damage output over this time period should then be evaluated. Invokers should remain at the top, as it's their proper place, but I believe they should likely (against a single target, of course) be closely followed by dire raiders and rangers. Lower down the chain, elementalists, druids, psionicists, and rogues should all be fairly balanced in output, at last the warrior (as his role is not damage, but should still be reasonably consistent with the rest).


Would this make the melees happy? Would this piss off the mages? Would this give consideration to those who are not mages or melees?


The main problem with these changes, is they will need to coincide with changes of the current zone designs. Mobs and zones and their encounters are designed around the present system. Any major changes may render some zones nearly impossible, while rendering others pointlessly easy. The changes needed to the zones may rival the changes just done to the equipment. But, you have my ideas, I think this is what you strive for in the 'balance'. If i'm wrong, let me know.


P.S. Yes, I forgot paladins/antipaladins. I don't play goodies enough to know anything about you guys balance wise. Sorry.
Sarell
Sojourner
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: brisbane, australia

Postby Sarell » Fri Nov 07, 2003 6:42 am

Tanking is fuddled like thanuk said. My level 41 newb shaman tanks better than my lvl 50 skill capped warrior. Warriors rely entirely on spellups now, even more so with the melle / tanking defense changes. I have an old log of Ladak pressing the button in musp and tanking all the giants for 5 rounds, now he wouldn't last one.

Defensive skills degenerate too fast. The getting partially hit was a very good idea as is taking away many of the mage hitpoints. AC should mean even more. Tanks need to be able to block more incoming attacks completely, but when attacks do get through, make them hurt a bit even through stone.

Stone / Scales are way out of whack, having a second rate stone up means more than having all the warrior skills in the world at the moment.

Spells such as blur and displace could be based not only on a characters AC but also take into account a characters skill in defense. Perhaps make them last significantly longer based on a characters defensive skill (like displace does sort of in a round about way but to a more extreme extent).

Pt II ... Damage...
While I may get a severe berating for it, I do not think damage is out of as far out of kilter as is percieved. I think the problem stems deeper. In the case of warriors, they have to dress like casters, so their damage is softened. Rogues do do quite decent damage to single target in my experience, and have awesome skills aswell. Rangers - get off your buts! - rangers do reasonable and consistant targeted damage, and once we pull defensive skills into line a bit they will be considered better tanks than clerics and mages. Already some rangers I would be confident in using as tanks for zones. I was under the impression however that the recent gear changes would significantly boost hit and dam which would give the extra little bit of damage to melee that is needed on top of tanking issues. This was proved completely wrong my perfect rogue set is nerfed hehe :) ... back to drawing board.
Mishre
Sojourner
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ US
Contact:

hafta throw in my 2 cents

Postby Mishre » Fri Nov 07, 2003 6:51 am

Alright, since everybody knows that Mishri is synonamous with Ub3|2 L337z Warrioring and stuffs.. ;) then i know you want to know what i have to say... :oops: :lol:

Basically, I have to agree that Skills and AC should dictate primarily how well you tank, but obviously we should need spells like stoneskin/blur/dscales otherwise enchanters/elementalists will never find groups outside of zones.. i suppose we could have such awesome skills that we can all solo for exp but what fun is that?

now all warriors aren't trolls... as far as my soloing capability goes with
-100 ac and 27 hit 31 damroll i couldn't even kill something that conned as easy. not even close.. and most of my skills are master.. (about 92-94 ish) (trolls do have a MUCH easier time soloing just because the regenerate so fast..)

I disagree that it is easy to get -100 ac.. w/o bark/armor i never have better than -90 ac.. (and now with eq changes w/o spells i have -71 ac and 20 hit 24dam).. ofcourse if i get full platemail instead of wearing bracers/greaves i could have -96 ac.. but then id lose out on hit/dam/hps

hit/dam doesn't seem to need downgrading.. i have no idea why it was unless you planning on making skills do more damage..

I would be all for making it so no warriorable eq had any +hps on it.. as long as our skills and ac made enough of a difference so we could handle more rounds of combat w/o displace/blur/stone/dscales..

1) Make the difference in AC stop at -100.. -200, -100 should be the same, or make it show on att what your ac really is if it makes a difference. (although id prefer it stops at -100 and just make ac worse on eq)

3) rogues shouldn't do as much damage as force missiles in 1 round.. thats what it sounde dlike you were saying.. invokers have to spend time meming and casting that spell, then only have a few of them.. it would be way too overpowering to have every rogue in your group also able to do that much damage.. however.. having them able to do as much damage as say clouds in 1 round might be closer to acceptable..

4) I agree that warriors should be doing a lot more damage than they are now.. not as much as rogues/rangers but paladins/aps can do more damage than us, get some semi-useless spells (hey there are times id like to be able to use a few of those spells) plus the layhands is nice.. and unholy avenger is sweeeeet... and they seem to tank just as well as we do.. only drawback is needing a mount.. anyway.. ap/ps should be doing more damage and warriors should be able to do a lot more damage than we do now.

5) I can't say we should do away completely with bash.. then there would be hardly any reason to use a shield at all.. everyone would either dual wield or 2hand.. however.. it is pretty much useless in most zones.. however CC w/o bashers would be quite the pain eh? ;)

anyway.. right now after eq downgrades i think rogues/rangers are feeling useless.. warriors are about the same as before though cuz we just need a few spells on us and then we are set to take it on ;) i dunno.. this post is way too long.. and im sure im gonna edit it too.. but right now im tired and going to bed ;)
Frensolith
Sojourner
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boulder, CO

Postby Frensolith » Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:59 am

And Make windsong elf warriorable!

*nod me*
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:05 pm

Izisayyin wrote:So, let me see if I understand what Thanuk is asking for correctly.

1. You want melee defensive skills to work better than dragonscales/displace/blur/stone.

Yes. Currently skills matter very little, and spells matter very much. It should be reversed. I have 4 defensive skills at 99, that are less effective than one spell from an enchanter in defending myself. If thats not bass ackwards i dunno what is.

Izisayyin wrote:2. You want to be able to max your HPs out while at the same time maxing your AC and hr/dr as well.

I want to be able to get -100 ac while still having a decent hit/dam and decent hps. You can't max yout hit/dam or hps, theres no limit.
Izisayyin wrote:3. You want to be able to do more damage in a fight than the most powerful damage class in the game.

No where do you see that?
Izisayyin wrote:So, why don't we just roll all the classes into one class and forget this class stuff? Personally, I don't think melees are useless. I think the crap about mages tanking as well as melees is also crap.

Your job is to bash, rescue, and take hits well. Mages do not do this.

Did you play before sojourn3? If not, stfu.
Izisayyin wrote:Yes, displace can make up for some of the lack of parry/dodge/etc for a mage.

Yes, dragonscales can make up for some of the lack of mage HPs.

There may not be a happy balance in place, but what you're talking about would just be throwing the balance completely over in the other direction.

The solo ability of the illusionist/shaman/enchanter/elementalist is a byproduct of their ability to protect others.

No it isn't. Their soloablity stems from their ability to stop mobs from casting and hitting well through spell effects like blind and feeblemind. The defensive spells just make it easier.

Izisayyin wrote:If you need this put more simply:

A troll warrior that is fire embodied, dragonscaled, displaced, hasted, blurred, yada yada is STILL 3x more effective as a tank than a duergar elementalist with the same benedictions.

No, they are exactly the same. THey dont get hit till blur goes out, then it chips at dscales till that goes out, and then they get their ass kicked.

Izisayyin wrote:Your problem seems to lie in the fact that while the warrior is more effective, the duergar is usually "effective enough".

This is a byproduct of the innovativeness of the players, not a lack of balance.

No. Your confused.
Izisayyin wrote:Also, I think about 98% of your complains actually fall on the area builders. The overuse of giant/etc class mobs, the lack of use of proper 'groups' of mobs. The main reason I see warriors as feeling optional, is because when you zone, you typically come up against a small number of mobs at a time, and they are extremely overpowered, giants, dragons, demons, etc, and going up against a group of 15.

Builders have nothing to do with the fact that defensive skills are meaningless. Again, your confused.
Izisayyin wrote:Melee types become much more effective when it's say, 15 on 15. In fact, they become essential. Even in fights where one may face only 5-6 mobs, the switch/etc behavior of the casting mobs (which also like to do 400hp a hit, but they're mages, of course) becomes too much, and you need your warriors, your rangers, your dires.

15 players on 15 mobs. Ill take 3 warriors, 2 clerics, 2 enchanters and 8 invokers. You take 8 rangers/rogues instead, and we'll see who lives. I'll give you a hint, it wont be you.
Izisayyin wrote:Rogues are a niche class, I won't touch upon them here, but they have an ability which far exceeds that of any other class in this game. I don't think it's fair or right to lump them into this discussion, they should have a discussion of their own if they feel unbalanced.


That ability is given out as a stat on equipment. Don't even start.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:17 pm

Izisayyin wrote:Thus, the effectiveness of the melee defense/dodge/agility at high skills/levels but without spells will match that of a high (casting) skilled caster who is displaced, but lacks the defensive skills. This brings the two into balance individually, but the "greatest" benefit is achieved only through the combination.

So in your mind, displace as a single spell should be equal to the protection i get from having maximum defensive skills. And that seems like its balanced to you? Just stop, you're making a fool of yourself.
Izisayyin wrote:Dragonscales/Stone and Parry/AC/Constitution:

Again, the exact same system of balance as above, paired with a different set of defensive skills.

A dragonscaled caster with no parry/AC/low con will have the same "toughness" as a warrior with no dragonscales at all, skill levels in the appropriate areas being the same.

So then displace is just as good as dragonscales, cuz both are as good as a warrior with maxed skills. Even though displace is like 6th circle, dscale is 10th and a quest? Yeah, that makes perfect sense :roll:

Izisayyin wrote:Apply the same methodology for all defensive bonus skills and spells, creating appropriate comparisons to balance the two groups of classes.
There will, however, be a problem from this. With the current switch/rescue mechanisms, mages will die with this system. There is no two ways around it. There will effectively be no way to keep the mage from getting hit in combat enough to keep them alive. With lowered effectiveness of stones/scales/displaces/etc, they will die almost immediately upon a switch.

I dunno what kind of mobs you fight, but even naked mages with 1200 hps will last more than 1 round.

Izisayyin wrote:This will need consideration, as defense in general may need to be upgraded for them, or the switching mechanisms may need to be tweaked. Or, even better, new skills placed in for melees to pre-empt the switch in the first place.

That's the worst idea ive ever heard. Pre-empt switch? You must be kidding.

Izisayyin wrote:OFFENSE:

The only way I can offer to bring these in balance is to basically eliminate the ability for casters to do one of two things: either they can no longer do area damage, or they can no longer do single-target damage. However, due to the nature of the beast, I don't see a TRUE necessity for either of these. I think with the defensive changes noted above, it will define a role for the majority of the melee classes, though put them in a lesser role for damage.

Why can't mages still do single target damage, just have rangers/rogues do better single target damage?
Izisayyin wrote:One thing I will say, and I have not investigated this, nor do I have the means to.

Over a 5 minute period of fighting, someone should take a ranger, dire raider, invoker, elementalist, warrior, rogue, druid, and psionicst and test their damage output against a single target over this period.

This will need to include all appropriate "downtime". IE: no concessions should be made for the time it takes to mem new spells, regen psp, repoison weapons, etc.

If your in a fight for 5 minutes, then you're going to lose. Maybe 2 minutes, but 5 is absurd.

Izisayyin wrote:The damage output over this time period should then be evaluated. Invokers should remain at the top, as it's their proper place, but I believe they should likely (against a single target, of course) be closely followed by dire raiders and rangers. Lower down the chain, elementalists, druids, psionicists, and rogues should all be fairly balanced in output, at last the warrior (as his role is not damage, but should still be reasonably consistent with the rest).


Would this make the melees happy? Would this piss off the mages? Would this give consideration to those who are not mages or melees?

That's a completely useless and unrealistic test. It wouldn't acheive anything.

Izisayyin wrote:The main problem with these changes, is they will need to coincide with changes of the current zone designs.

If you have to change the zones to make your changes work, then you did something wrong, try again.

Izisayyin wrote:Mobs and zones and their encounters are designed around the present system. Any major changes may render some zones nearly impossible, while rendering others pointlessly easy. The changes needed to the zones may rival the changes just done to the equipment. But, you have my ideas, I think this is what you strive for in the 'balance'. If i'm wrong, let me know.


P.S. Yes, I forgot paladins/antipaladins. I don't play goodies enough to know anything about you guys balance wise. Sorry.


You're wrong.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:04 pm

Here's a proposal to address melee:

Warriors: Make tank skills make a difference in getting hit and receiving damage from normal attacks. Shield block should be improved immensely but not work on Circle, Archery, vs two handed attack.

reduce the effectiveness on stone/dragonscale et al or make them work in conjunction with the skill level of the subject casted upon. This puts a premium on the skills being maxed. It leaves the spells as important parts of the equation.

Reduce the overall damage that areas do for PC's but not neccessarily mobs. There is a balance here that needs to be found since pc casters are rarely bashed and mob casters rarely aren't. Mob area's should be deadly.

Since doing that will make it difficult for Rogues and Rangers to hit and do damage:

Rogues: Make circle for Rogues much easier to hit and do huge amounts of damage. Would mean that a rogue on its ass would be close to worthless which would make bashing them hugely important. Can't remember if I can circle someone else if I am engaged but if not they should be able to do that. This makes Bash even more important.

Rangers: Make Archery huge amount of damage as well. Nuke missle shield. This means that bashing the ranger in the group is really important. Make archery not do much damage when used outside of the room you are in. Archery into the next room should do almost no damage. Should just be a luring tool. Make arrows unable to go outside of the room you are in if you're target was in the room.

Warriors/anti/pali - Increase the damage they do when they are not bashing/rescuing by making two hand damage and hit much bigger. make it almost impossible to bash while wielding two handed.

This would allow tank skills to increase, allow rangers and rogues to increase the damage that they do and place a premium on bash and rescues.

Just have to make sure that zone creators are not putting in !bash!trip mobs that are rangers/rogues cause we gonna get owned. Even !bash!trip warriors are gonna be huge in this scenario if they are welding two handed weapons.

Feel free to pick this apart. There is a lot of balancing that would need to happen here but at least it tries to address both the tank and melee issues in one place :>)

Re reading this you would need a lot of bashers. Need to balance that a bit. But then again, would make you bring more bashers/tripers with you since they would be able to switch between doing damage and keeping damage off of you.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:42 pm

Mullet and all Thanuk was dead on.

old depok wrote:Rangers: Make Archery huge amount of damage as well. Nuke missle shield. This means that bashing the ranger in the group is really important. Make archery not do much damage when used outside of the room you are in. Archery into the next room should do almost no damage. Should just be a luring tool. Make arrows unable to go outside of the room you are in if you're target was in the room.


ick
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Fri Nov 07, 2003 5:02 pm

I like how warriors have to choose two between AC, Hit/Dam, and HP. This gives us variety in what we get wear. I wouldn't say -100 AC is hard to get, you just have to accept losing some HP or Hit/Dam to compensate. In addition balancewise, if good AC was made much harder to obtain then good AC could be coded to be more important.

If anyone cares, here's my take on tanking. Blur has to go. It's too powerful. I can tank pretty much anything that doesn't nuke when I have blur up, huge fights included (invasions, gatehouses, main bosses, whatever). However on the big fights, once blur drops I pretty much to get splatted. During those fights, the main importance of displace, stone, and scales is to keep me alive during the time between blur dropping and going back up again. So blur is too powerful. I say that it should be taken out and maxxed warrior AC + skills bumped to fill about 50% to 75% of the void.

For melee balance, I am mostly concerned with rogues and rangers. While we warriors (pals/antis included) have an important job of rescuing/dying, rogues and rangers have little to nothing. Rogues have a small niche of scouting/dragging/picking, but once a group has 1 rogue it's set for rogues. Also, once a group has 0 rangers, it's set of rangers. It would be a good idea to up their melee damage so that they are viable alternatives to nukers.

Here's my idea for rogues and rangers. I think the easiest solution is to give those classes a "third or fourth attack skill" giving rogues 2 to 5 more attacks per round and 1 to 4 more for rangers. Ranger archery should be increased greatly. This gives rangers the niche for fighting high MR mobs with exceptional *cough* AC/defensive skills *cough*. The biggest problem with ranger archery are how many arrows are needed (running out of arrows/breaking arrows) and how the arrows screw up looting. First, make it so rangers are hard coded to retrieve their arrows once a mob dies. Second, make rangers only shoot 1 arrow per round, but make this arrow give more damage than a round of melee.

Hmmm.... that's it.
Izisayyin
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:03 pm

Postby Izisayyin » Fri Nov 07, 2003 6:31 pm

thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote:Thus, the effectiveness of the melee defense/dodge/agility at high skills/levels but without spells will match that of a high (casting) skilled caster who is displaced, but lacks the defensive skills. This brings the two into balance individually, but the "greatest" benefit is achieved only through the combination.

So in your mind, displace as a single spell should be equal to the protection i get from having maximum defensive skills. And that seems like its balanced to you? Just stop, you're making a fool of yourself.

You lack reading comprehension apparently. That's ok, it seems to be expected of you. No, I do not expect a single spell to be the equivalent of all maximum defensive skills. Try reading what I wrote. A warrior, not displaced, with high defense/dodge/agility, would achieve a goal of effectiveness (a higher one than present). A mage, without or with low skills in this, COMBINED with displace, would then be the equivalent of said warriors WITH those skills and WITHOUT the spell. When the melee then has this spell added to his high skills/abilities, he then has the bonuses of both the skill, added on to the benefits of the spell, making him reach a level that is not obtainable by the mage.
thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote:Dragonscales/Stone and Parry/AC/Constitution:

Again, the exact same system of balance as above, paired with a different set of defensive skills.

A dragonscaled caster with no parry/AC/low con will have the same "toughness" as a warrior with no dragonscales at all, skill levels in the appropriate areas being the same.

So then displace is just as good as dragonscales, cuz both are as good as a warrior with maxed skills. Even though displace is like 6th circle, dscale is 10th and a quest? Yeah, that makes perfect sense :roll:


Again, reading comprehension. Same system of BALANCE, IE: warriors obtain a level of skill sans-spell which is matched by a mage with the spell, warrior with both skills + spells == level unacheivable by mage. Again, current melee skills in this area need to be increased.

thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote:Apply the same methodology for all defensive bonus skills and spells, creating appropriate comparisons to balance the two groups of classes.
There will, however, be a problem from this. With the current switch/rescue mechanisms, mages will die with this system. There is no two ways around it. There will effectively be no way to keep the mage from getting hit in combat enough to keep them alive. With lowered effectiveness of stones/scales/displaces/etc, they will die almost immediately upon a switch.

I dunno what kind of mobs you fight, but even naked mages with 1200 hps will last more than 1 round.


We've already addressed the hp problem. It's great that you guys have such nice eq, but a lot of us are down here in the 400-600hp range. I have most definitely died in 1 round of switching due to a crit, breath, etc being added on to it.

thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote:This will need consideration, as defense in general may need to be upgraded for them, or the switching mechanisms may need to be tweaked. Or, even better, new skills placed in for melees to pre-empt the switch in the first place.

That's the worst idea ive ever heard. Pre-empt switch? You must be kidding.

Izisayyin wrote:OFFENSE:

The only way I can offer to bring these in balance is to basically eliminate the ability for casters to do one of two things: either they can no longer do area damage, or they can no longer do single-target damage. However, due to the nature of the beast, I don't see a TRUE necessity for either of these. I think with the defensive changes noted above, it will define a role for the majority of the melee classes, though put them in a lesser role for damage.

Why can't mages still do single target damage, just have rangers/rogues do better single target damage?


Because by your own and other people's gripes, if a mage can still do single target damage, as well as doing area target damage, you will never consider this world balanced. *I* do not agree with this point, that is the argument YOU made. Unless of course, you'd rather give melees area damage.

thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote:One thing I will say, and I have not investigated this, nor do I have the means to.

Over a 5 minute period of fighting, someone should take a ranger, dire raider, invoker, elementalist, warrior, rogue, druid, and psionicst and test their damage output against a single target over this period.

This will need to include all appropriate "downtime". IE: no concessions should be made for the time it takes to mem new spells, regen psp, repoison weapons, etc.

If your in a fight for 5 minutes, then you're going to lose. Maybe 2 minutes, but 5 is absurd.

You know not what you saying. Speak english? The 5 minute average is for testing an average of damage output. ONLY. I realize this is not a realistic combat scenario, it's purely a damage output test to gather numbers. Numbers that noone presently has. You cannot balance damage output without knowing what that damage output is. 1 minute is not a long enough period to effectively gauge this.
thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote:The damage output over this time period should then be evaluated. Invokers should remain at the top, as it's their proper place, but I believe they should likely (against a single target, of course) be closely followed by dire raiders and rangers. Lower down the chain, elementalists, druids, psionicists, and rogues should all be fairly balanced in output, at last the warrior (as his role is not damage, but should still be reasonably consistent with the rest).


Would this make the melees happy? Would this piss off the mages? Would this give consideration to those who are not mages or melees?

That's a completely useless and unrealistic test. It wouldn't acheive anything.

Izisayyin wrote:The main problem with these changes, is they will need to coincide with changes of the current zone designs.

If you have to change the zones to make your changes work, then you did something wrong, try again.

Izisayyin wrote:Mobs and zones and their encounters are designed around the present system. Any major changes may render some zones nearly impossible, while rendering others pointlessly easy. The changes needed to the zones may rival the changes just done to the equipment. But, you have my ideas, I think this is what you strive for in the 'balance'. If i'm wrong, let me know.


P.S. Yes, I forgot paladins/antipaladins. I don't play goodies enough to know anything about you guys balance wise. Sorry.


You're wrong.
Stamm
Sojourner
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Stamm » Sat Nov 08, 2003 2:43 am

Just a little more to throw in.

I don't think that any of the warriors here asking for changes are looking for things to get easier.

We're not looking for us to be able to tank the entire contents of Muspelheim and nip off for a full heal every fifteen minutes or so....

We're looking for downgrades and upgrades, and I think we realise it's not going to be a quick fix and that it'll take a good deal of thought.

Also. Stamm is so right it's untrue, I agree with everything he says! Give the man a lot of beer and rum and stuff. Seriously though, with all the tanks reading from the same hymn sheet, doesn't that tell people that we have a point?
Izisayyin
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:03 pm

Postby Izisayyin » Sat Nov 08, 2003 2:57 am

Stamm wrote:Just a little more to throw in.

I don't think that any of the warriors here asking for changes are looking for things to get easier.

We're not looking for us to be able to tank the entire contents of Muspelheim and nip off for a full heal every fifteen minutes or so....

We're looking for downgrades and upgrades, and I think we realise it's not going to be a quick fix and that it'll take a good deal of thought.

Also. Stamm is so right it's untrue, I agree with everything he says! Give the man a lot of beer and rum and stuff. Seriously though, with all the tanks reading from the same hymn sheet, doesn't that tell people that we have a point?


Stamm, what do you think of the method of balancing I proposed above? Making displace/blur/stone/scales effective based upon defensive skills (thus making them less effective for those without, and keeping their current effectiveness when combined with melee defensive skills?)

Would this system be 'upgrades and downgrades' in the sense you expect for a melee?
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Sat Nov 08, 2003 4:38 am

Thanuk has tons of great ideas. I think we need to try something to get balance right. . and I've been touting this idea for what seems years now. . .


Why is everything so black or white. . on or off? Let me explain. ..

All of our skills/spells/etc are geard towards working, or not working. Either you're hit, or you're missed. Either the spell blows the mob up, or passes harmlessly around it.

I think we need to code in more gradation of effects. That way we can have spells AND skills be effective. . .and in combination have the best possible effect. The same with spell offense. It seems like invokers are either uber effective or worthless (without flux). Mobs with MR shouldn't just shrug off all damage. Give them a % MR and they take that % less damage from spells. Flux can reduce that. .. and maybe another spell reduce it further. This could allow for lowering of spell damage to a level where melee can compete without negating the classes that rely on the damage.

I like the new ideas about bash. Bash should stay in the game, but not prevent casting. Give it a % stun chance and let it at that. Bashed mobs take 1.5X melee damage and might lose their spell.

Give casters a counterspell instead of silence. Make silence room effect again. Make us choose between countering our enemies or casting against them or on our comrades.

Lower Thac0 for hitting classes.

Give mobs the same skill sets. . .so we don't either miss or hit them. .. .give us partial hits where we might miss outright.

(Also see my post on ideas for rangers! mwahaha)

See, I firmly believe that if we can change to a more malleable system, where all of our modifiers aren't adding up to *one* possible outcome (hit, or miss). We've got a TON more room to play with for balance =)

Just my ideas. .. hope they made sense!

Thanks!

Lost
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:34 am

Izisayyin wrote: A warrior, not displaced, with high defense/dodge/agility, would achieve a goal of effectiveness (a higher one than present). A mage, without or with low skills in this, COMBINED with displace, would then be the equivalent of said warriors WITH those skills and WITHOUT the spell.


The rest of it doesn't even make sense. But look what your saying here. A warrior with no spells, but maxed skills, would "achieve a goal of effectiveness" as a mage with displace. So displace is the equivalent of 99 in all defensive skills. Do you see what's wrong with your theory yet?
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Izisayyin
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:03 pm

Postby Izisayyin » Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:51 am

thanuk wrote:
Izisayyin wrote: A warrior, not displaced, with high defense/dodge/agility, would achieve a goal of effectiveness (a higher one than present). A mage, without or with low skills in this, COMBINED with displace, would then be the equivalent of said warriors WITH those skills and WITHOUT the spell.


The rest of it doesn't even make sense. But look what your saying here. A warrior with no spells, but maxed skills, would "achieve a goal of effectiveness" as a mage with displace. So displace is the equivalent of 99 in all defensive skills. Do you see what's wrong with your theory yet?


Yes, but currently 99 in all defensive skills is not that useful. I'm also saying that this should ONLY apply with a displace from a level 50 caster, who's casting skills in the appropriate categories are also 99.

I'm also saying that a mage would never have a chance to acheive the same level of defense that a melee can. It will require a combination of the two to reach this level, as is the group oriented nature of Toril.

Balance is what you're asking for, in this scenario, you describe perfect balance, assuming of course, offense is also equally balanced. (A displaced caster, unless an invoker or elementalist, should not have the same offensive capabilities as the melee at this point). Therefore you have tipped the scales in favor of the melee.

You can't simply strip away all defensive capability from a mage, that's not balance. Balance is equalizing the two. This is what i'm proposing.

You also must realize, your defensive abilities are skill based. Therefore you will have the equivalent of a mage who is permanently displaced. The mage will never have this advantage. He has a limited number of spells, and will have to recast.

Combine this with a balance on the offensive side, and I think you'll see the balance that you seek. Mages will never be able to have the defensive ability that currently exists. Melees will be able to acheive the current level of defense, but only through both a combination of their advanced skills, and an advanced caster.

Melees at this point become required, but can also not go without the mages. They depend on each other.

As for the offensive side, the 5 minute "average" is purely for a numbers testing. It's not practical in game. The staff would have to perform this with a mob with appropriate skills for testing levels, and say like 10million HP. You then test how much damage each class can do in a 5 minute period against the mob, and you get the damage/minute or damage/sec average. Then you tier the classes and make sure the maintain a consistent level of damage/minute or damage/sec for their class, dependent on their role.

All make sense now? It's pretty simple, it could even be done on a "points" system as the equipment is. Given various abilities, their damage output and defensive skills can then be adjusted so keep them in "place" with the other classes.

IE: An invoker averages 50 damage/second, an ranger/dire averages 40 damage/second, a rogue/elementalist averages 35 damage/second, etc, etc.

Once damage output is adjusted to consistent levels, and defensive abilities adjusted in line as above, melees now come in line with the mages when each is working solo. When working in a group, the mages bring the melees up to the current level of effectiveness defensively (plus new levels of offense as balanced), while the other mages focus on additional damage. The melees are required as they will be the ONLY classes with defensive abilities on par with a current scaled/displaced/blurred/etc PC. Mages will only be as effective (even spelled) as an unspelled melee. Thus, we need the melees to do what they do, melee and let the mages do what they do, cast.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Nov 08, 2003 7:30 am

I blame invokers and enchanters.

*bow*

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Davester
Sojourner
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:50 pm

Postby Davester » Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:33 am

Honestly, i just saw my HPs get ganked... I don't know the full effect of the eq changes, BUT!

if you're not level 46+ and if you haven't done lots of high end zones, your opinion really doesn't mean jack shit... this change was meant to make the high end game more challenging (i assume)... and while i don't think it addresses the "REAL" problems (ie-invokers are too powerful), take some time and digest the changes and see how it affects game play...

god forbid a routine run become a challenge that depends on some skill rather than mindless robot spellups :P

kthxbye~
Vlorm - Iron Chef, Barbarian
Dezzex
Sojourner
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri May 11, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Va.BC

Postby Dezzex » Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:07 am

I blame illusionists.

*bow*

Oh, and the pointlessness of melee at the moment is the excuse I give to not globe and haste whiny hitters. If they actually become on par with spell damage, please give them their own means to do these things. It's bad enough just having to deal with one level 40 ebony-wielding troll warrior who probably regens more hp than he loses through fireshield.
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:34 am

Its easy to balance the mud.

1) Remove all area spells from players.

2) Yank Invokers

3) Yank Enchanters

4) Yank Elementalists

5) Yank Illusionists

6) Bring back Sorcerers... Their role would be to globe, haste, and occasional bigbys, pwb's.

7) Remove stoneskin & dragonscales as concepts.

8) Make warrior SKILL-LEVEL in parry/block/dodge and AC reduce the damage taken.

9) Bring back monks :)
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition

Return to “T2 Gameplay Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests