Melee Balance idea.

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Melee Balance idea.

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:49 pm

RE-write Khanjari dagger as Khanjari Scimitar. make it ranger only.
Problem solved.



Seriously tho. Here is the melee solution:

1) make weapon damage more... rational. Daggers shouldn't do more
damage than longswords. 2h weapons should be an alternative to sword
and shield style that is worth using.

2) improve awareness effectiveness for PC's. Increase fail chance of
circle at higher levels (rediculously effective). Up vital strike damage,
remove second attack.

Impliment these ideas, most problems will be solved, some new little
ones probbably created, and go from there! =)
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:35 pm

1) i agree. no questions here
2) silly. Ppl started crying bout rogues. God firbid that melee class would come close to power of casters. I mean common. Finally there is some cool melee class to play that is enjoyable and doesnt suck too bad in comparison to mages. why dg? i would rather call for other melee classes to get some kind of a boost. How about making rangers useful? (third attack maybe? or offhand second attack? archery fix? nature hide?). Besides upping vital strike damage would give even more of a boost to evil human rogue bandwagon since they have forced vital strike on proc and i think lot of ppl agreed that the difference is to big already
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Grizz
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:36 am
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Grizz » Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:54 pm

I played Dark Age of Camelot for a while when it first came out and one of the cool features it had was specialized manuevres. Certain kinds of swings with the sword or axe or defense with the shield. I know that Toril already has a nice number of different attacks available but I think it would be cool to have more. Maybe an attack that takes twice as long to use but if it connects it does 2x normal damage. Well this is just babble I guess. What was the question?
Mogan: Paladin, Human(Active)

In the immortal words of Tagad, "F**K IT! CHARGE!"
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:30 pm

Grizz wrote:I played Dark Age of Camelot for a while when it first came out and...


How did i know...
Grizz
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:36 am
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Grizz » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:31 pm

Delmair Aamoren wrote:
Grizz wrote:I played Dark Age of Camelot for a while when it first came out and...


How did i know...


I actually quit EQ and then went to DAoC. I fought the cancer and I have won. I no longer play on those games. I have awaken from the coma.
Mogan: Paladin, Human(Active)



In the immortal words of Tagad, "F**K IT! CHARGE!"
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Melee Balance idea.

Postby Treladian » Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:39 am

Delmair Aamoren wrote:1) make weapon damage more... rational. Daggers shouldn't do more
damage than longswords. 2h weapons should be an alternative to sword
and shield style that is worth using.


I remember a long time ago Garguath, D2, or one of the other coders mentioning that 1h piercers had given upgrades across the board in the rogue revision and that other weapon types would follow afterwards. Yeah, I still get a laugh out of that one.
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'
Wuk
Sojourner
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Whiteland, Indiana, USA

Postby Wuk » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:22 pm

I totally agree, This is a D&D based MUD

Daggers 1D4
Shortswords 1D6
Longswords 1D8

and So on.

Rogues should get thier power from skills not Damage dice.

And before people quote this weapon or that.
There is always Exceptions to the RULE.
Yes some items Have more power, But in a balanced game those items would not be on every rogue or warrior.

Longswords Should in general do DOUBLE the damage as a dagger
if they are to be balanced. A rogue wielding a dagger that is 1D4 would be able to do more damage to a target than a longsword anyhow, With the extra damage they get, and skills etc.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:40 am

Want to fix melee classes? Get rid of invokers, upgrade melee damage. Get rid of enchanters, upgrade tanking skills. done.

let the flames begin :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:38 am

Corth wrote:Want to fix melee classes? Get rid of invokers, upgrade melee damage. Get rid of enchanters, upgrade tanking skills. done.

let the flames begin :)


Shouldn't you be notching your Coma skill?
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:29 am

corth's right, this mud needs work
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Ashod
Sojourner
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Sebring ,FL,US

Postby Ashod » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:33 am

Rogues should get thier power from skills not Damage dice.

Agree with this 100%


And before people quote this weapon or that.
There is always Exceptions to the RULE.


there are always exceptions but balancing them can still be obtained so that that exception doesn't make everyone in the game automaticly roll a specific class because of an overpowering weapon.

The point of this mud is for everyone to have fun..
one of the most irritating things i have heard on this mud so far.

I was talking about how rangers where not really a serving melee class in the game unless needed for specific exceptions. For the most part they just don't get the play time that a rogue gets in zones. The reply that i got was if you want to play melee play your rogue. Basicly what i got told was... in order for me to play and have fun I had to play a specific class in the realm of cast (melee/caster) witch in this case was a rogue. The problem is i wanted to play a ranger and have fun.. but the demand for them is so lacking.

I am using this as an example by pointing out specific classes, but in the department of melee even warriors and anti paladins should be able to do some extremely decent melee combat.


silly. Ppl started crying bout rogues. God firbid that melee class would come close to power of casters. I mean common. Finally there is some cool melee class to play that is enjoyable and doesnt suck too bad in comparison to mages.


I agree with the fact that melee classes should be fun to play but in reguards to rogues rationally being the best melee class in the game i disagree. What makes a rogue fun isn't the fact that he can do insane damage. It is that a rogue has insanely useful skills that are fun to use.
As far as a rogue being better that every melee class i disagree totally.

Yes a rogue should be able to do insane damage, but not from standing in melee combat.

As far as melee classes the ranking of damage capability in melee should be as listed imo.

#1 Rangers and Anti-Paladins
#2 Warriors and Paladins
*#3 Rogue
#4 Priests classes... (yes they should be decent but here they are pretty much non exsistant)

*rogues should be able to do insanly crazy damage from attack of oppritunities(vital strike,backstab,circle) and poison uses. Even pron attacks from a rogue.. say when timed right and a mob is bashed... then circled while down should do insane damage if landed.

Things i think will balance melee.

1)First of all the only classes that do significant damage at all anymore based on equipment requirements to zone is rogues and rangers.
While the tank classes can do damage the pretty much are oppted out of it due to the fact that in order to be a successful tank in big zones the must rely on Hitpoints and -100 ac and well practiced skills.
This strongly takes away from their damage melee. This is fine but the weapons of these classes should also factor this out so that the tank classes do very good damage aswell. with the current state most of the extreme damage weapons belong to rogues. The fact that daggers can do more damage that longswords just baffels me greatly... if your gonna have a dagger that does 4hit 3dmg and has a hit dice of 3d4 you should have longswords that are 3d8 8hit 6dmg. long blades do alot more damage than any short weapon. In balancing out melee in this way melee damage won't be as powerful as direct magic, but in the long run be more powerful due to consistant damage.

2)rogues as a class are a skill class. I believe that the melee skills are a bit off. second attack and offense should be lowered caps. backstab modifiers should be uped a bit. (awareness should make it pretty hard for rogues to backstab again in open melee, unless of course the mob is pron or disabled). Vital strike i believe is based off strength. This should be worked into intellegence seeing as knowing anatomy is how a rogue knows how and where to strike, not how hard he strikes. Circle should be played with so that it lands less.. but when it lands it lands very hard.

3)rangers... well they need alot of help.. I would start with balancing there weapons so that they do more damage. Rescue is an agility skill... Rangers should have a much higher cap than 50. They should be just as good a rescue as any warrior. Bash is fine.. leave it alone. Achery needs a complete overhaul i think. would be nice to see real vollies of arrows that hit random mobs.. say 6 arrows a round. archery targeting doesn't exsist. currently you have to disengage and start shooting again. lots of other problems exsist with the current archery skill set and it has been discussed in very good detail by some of the rangers on a few posts.

These are just a few of the ideas i have..
Sservis
Sojourner
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:12 pm

Postby Sservis » Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:45 am

Ashod wrote:
Rogues should get thier power from skills not Damage dice.

Agree with this 100%


This is an issue with melee balance. What hit/dam do you balance melee damage at? uber elite eq? decent eq? midbie? newbie? naked?

Let's say you balance the hit/dam at 95% hitting/50 dam+weapon dmg for a rogue. I'm pretty sure that 95% hitting/70 dam+weapon dmg is possible and achieved if not surpassed by the top of the line rogues. Those rogues are effectively +40% damage. [+20 damage is essentially +1 dam/slot, seems a reasonible gap between the balance point and the top of the line].

How can a caster get +40% effectiveness. Consider a yuan cleric with full heal [race/class I have data on]

full heal takes 22 heartbeats to pray sans meditate [!hungry/!thirsty/100 yuan wis]. With 90 meditate, this is 12.1 heartbeats [it's actually 12.1 due to a rounding bug with post meditate check mem/pray times, but going to ignore that]. Casting full heal takes 33 or 17 heartbeats with an 8 heartbeat lag depending if quick chant works or not. Average = 24.16 heartbeats.

Total time for a mem/cast full heal [not counting leaving/rest/pray/standing/moving to go to the combat room] averages 36.26 heartbeats [just over 9 seconds]

As far as I can tell int/wis do not affect vit hp [assuming this means no effect on specialize or spellcast, thus full heal untouched] or casting time at all. At least yuan 84/100 vs 111/116 had no effect [and that's 2 or 3 int notches and 2 wis notches of swing]. I tested by borrowing some of Lilithelle's maxwis gear [134 wis [4 notches], !hungry, !thirsty] and was able to hammer 4 heartbeats off the full heal time, pushing it down to 19 heartbeats. This with 90 meditate would pray a full heal in an average of 10.45 heartbeats. My cycle time would drop to 34.61 heartbeats. Lets say with top of the line gear [around 150 wis needed] could knock it down to 17 heartbeats or 9.35 on average. I'd then cycle in 33.51 heartbeats.

With top of the line maxwis gear I've improved my clerical full heal cycle from 36.26 heartbeats to 33.51 heartbeats.

This means that my cycle time is now 92.42% of what it used to be [not counting move/rest/pray/stand/move which is at least 3 heartbeats per cycle if not moving, and 5 if moving]. This corresponds to a healing/time increase of around 8.21%.

For a yuan cleric [and I'm assuming all casters], the power increase by going from no maxstat to top of the line [around 150 would be what it would take for my yuan cleric to hit that 17 I mentioned] results in a power increase on 8.21%. The hypothetical melee character experienced a 40% increase by going from zoneable [ie the 50 dam+weapon dmg] to top of the line.

Unless melee is balanced really close to "top of the line", it will be possible for well eq-ed melee characters to far surpass the balance point. If melee is balanced close "top of the line" it will seem like melee is not balance for the majority of the mud. Alternatively, maxstat could be made to have a larger effect for casters and then both types of classes would have a large eq based swing. As is stands now, casting classes aren't really that eq dependent for class functionality, but melee classes are. This produces consequences that are hard to handle while balancing.

Either top end rogues are overpowered relative to top end casters or all other rogues are underpowered relative to nontop of the line casters.

I'd love to see hitters be less gear dependent or casters be more gear dependent, but until one or the other happens, effects like this will exist/persist.

note: I'd love to have good numbers on what consitutes zoneable vs top of the line for a hitter. mmail sservis or hsievssruk
Gura ASSOC:: 'man im such a prick'
Gura ASSOC:: 'but im so good at it'
Gura ASSOC:: 'especially when im right'

Shar responds to your petition with 'do what we do. just stop listning to gura :P'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:36 pm

70 damage with 95% hitting is not really possible.
I tried getting dam as high as possible and with wearing +3dam (that is max) in almost every slot i got to like 64 dam but with hitroll that wouldnt let me hit anything in zone.
To hit reliably you need at very least 28 hitroll preferably 30 and if you want to land assass from time to time 32+ is good. Plus you need some prots and at least minimal saves. Eq I aim for on my rogue is 30/54 full prots and i dont think you can get it much higher. and if you want to tank from time to time or survive bashing while tagging you need ac which drops hit/dam even farther.
As for caster being not relaible on eq its a lie. How many fullheals would you be able to cast in big battle if you had just your naked hps? My mage has 216 hps naked. without prots saves etc one cloud has a chance to put me back into guild. Having 728 hps all prots and saves increases my ability to deal damage many times over.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:37 pm

Sservis wrote:
Ashod wrote:
Rogues should get thier power from skills not Damage dice.

Agree with this 100%


This is an issue with melee balance. What hit/dam do you balance melee damage at? uber elite eq? decent eq? midbie? newbie? naked?


Your whole argument is totally out in left field.

The problem exists because rogues outdamage every other melee class available. This problem doesn't involve casters or casting or anything even involving what hit/dam they can achieve.

The majority of melee characters want to see balance in that a rogues damage output comes from their unique skills, and not from piling overpowered(yes, there is tons of it in the game now) equipment onto them.

Melee damage balance should IMO come from each melee class having a niche, and none really being the end-all-be-all of damage everywhere and in every situation(as it stands now).

Unique ideas for this? Maybe in another thread, but for now you get the idea.

!!x
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Sservis wrote:
Ashod wrote:
Rogues should get thier power from skills not Damage dice.

Agree with this 100%


This is an issue with melee balance. What hit/dam do you balance melee damage at? uber elite eq? decent eq? midbie? newbie? naked?


Sojourn 2 dice and plusses.
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:13 pm

Some of these arguments are truly amusing. We seem to have already
"balanced" the equipment portion, so this 95% hitrate at 70 damroll blah
blah blah stuff is just spitting into the wind. The real balance needs to
happen on the skill level, or hidden factors in the skills/pfiles that aren't
equipment related. In this area i would like to see 2 changes.

One, is increase survivability of mages. Don't up their hp, god knows they
already wear too much +hp gear. Give them a little higher dodge or
something. In this category, increase the effectiveness of all defensive
skills, and reduce the effectiveness (although not to the same degree)
of "defensive" spells.

The other is of course melee balance. Melee balance as i
see it, isn't just add some damage from melee weapons. It is a multi-
focal ordeal. Giving rangers a couple skills they are decent at, especially
rescue. Giving warriors the ability to deal damage a bit better by making
wielding a 2h weapon worthwhile. Make dagger damage sane. Allow
rogue damage to come from skills, etc. After all, they are the only class
that can get to a 99 1h piercing to my knowledge. Can use that as
an advantage.
Sservis
Sojourner
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:12 pm

Postby Sservis » Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:48 pm

oteb wrote:70 damage with 95% hitting is not really possible.


reread the post. I was talking about 70 dam+weapon damage. ie 55dam + average dmg 15 weapon or so.
Gura ASSOC:: 'man im such a prick'

Gura ASSOC:: 'but im so good at it'

Gura ASSOC:: 'especially when im right'



Shar responds to your petition with 'do what we do. just stop listning to gura :P'
amolol
Sojourner
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:01 am

Postby amolol » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:47 am

any one wanna guess what im gonna say? oh ok... you already knew.

rangers should out damage rogues yes. but not to the point that it migh compromise nuker damage.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:22 am

Sservis wrote:reread the post. I was talking about 70 dam+weapon damage. ie 55dam + average dmg 15 weapon or so.


To get 15 average weapon damage, you'd need a weapon with damage dice of 1d29, 2d15, 3d9, 5d5, 6d4. 10d2, or 15d1. To my knowledge, there's no one handed weapon with this kind of damage dice so it's still really not possible to the best of my knowledge. The point still stands, but people using the maximum damage roll in damage calculations always annoys me (Waelos has been yelled at many times for it =p)

The last time I heard, backstab and circle both put their damage through a multiplier so an increase in damroll has a much more dramatic effect for rogues than other classes. On a related note, the 3rd edition rules for rogue sneak attack have the extra damage it deals depend solely on the level of the rogue, having every two levels add an extra d6 to the total, instead of having it just be a multiplier like a thief's backstab did 2nd edition. If circle and backstab were altered in a similar way to just add on an amount of damage dependent on skills to the base damage a rogue deals, it WOULD make melee balance easier since rogue damage would be more linear instead of quadratic and hence easier to predict (since even regular hits seem to go through a multiplier based on offense skill, it wouldn't be perfectly linear, but still easier to pinpoint in relation to other classes). The potential disadvantage is that rogues would be much more effective than any other melee class naked as long as they have a piercer, but then again it's not like they'd be hitting much like that.
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:33 pm

>Rogues should get thier power from skills not Damage dice.

agree, magical or not, swords should do more damage than daggers. I do like 1d4 vs 1d6 vs 1d8

> ranking by damage
>#1 Rangers and Anti-Paladins
>#2 Warriors and Paladins
>*#3 Rogue
>#4 Priests classes... (yes they should be decent but here they are pretty much non exsistant)

I disagree, i would rank melee damage
#1 (10x damage) ranger and rogue
#2 (8x damage) anti and paladin
#3 (6x damage) warrior, bard
#4 (3x damage) priests (dressed for hit/dam)
#5 (1x damage) mages

>70 damage with 95% hitting is not really possible.

it is with archery...

95% hit rate is not really possible in any eq when you factor in mob defensive skills (however archery ignores those)

>The problem exists because rogues outdamage every other melee class available. This problem doesn't involve casters or casting or anything even involving what hit/dam they can achieve.

I don't see how this is a problem... ROGUES ARE A DAMAGE MELEE CLASS... the only area where this could be construed as a problem is in relation to rangers however the problem isnt that rogues do too much damage its that rangers haven't done enough in zone damage for quite some time, 8 years by some accounts.


>One, is increase survivability of mages. Don't up their hp, god knows they
already wear too much +hp gear. Give them a little higher dodge or
something.

mages have this really awesome defensive skill they never use. its called AC, try it sometime.

>The other is of course melee balance. Melee balance as i see it, isn't just add some damage from melee weapons. It is a multi- focal ordeal.

Well that's kind of obvious, however I think its commonly agreed upon that the biggest imbalances in the game today center around damage. Caster vs melee, rogue vs ranger, and 2h weapons vs 1h.

>To get 15 average weapon damage, you'd need a weapon with damage dice of 1d29, 2d15, 3d9, 5d5, 6d4. 10d2, or 15d1. To my knowledge, there's no one handed weapon with this kind of damage dice so it's still really not possible to the best of my knowledge.

spob axe and valhalla scepter, 6d4, avg 15 damage.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:14 pm

sservis pointed out that as it stands its virtually impossible to maintain any kind of melee damage balance that isn't destroyed by eq. If the midpoint is too low the top end is ridiculous, if its too high the majority of the players are underpowered.

what needs to occur is that melee damage needs to be affected by class dependent multipliers to achieve a sense of banding. lets use the table below for discussion.

#1 (10x damage) ranger and rogue
#2 (8x damage) anti and paladin
#3 (6x damage) warrior, bard
#4 (3x damage) priests
#5 (1x damage) mages

With multiplers, as new eq comes out the damage scales accordingly. If we used the scale above, a new 10 damage ring might add 10 damroll for a rogue but only 6 damroll for a warrior. In this way certain classes will always be favored for damage even though specific individuals with uber eq may outdamage a portion of the pbase of other classes in higher bands.

This certainly wouldn't fix things completely, however I think it would be a step in the right direction. THe biggest challenges after normalizing melee damage is to bring skill based damage and proc damage which currently are very large sources of damage.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:56 pm

Treladian wrote:On a related note, the 3rd edition rules for rogue sneak attack have the extra damage it deals depend solely on the level of the rogue, having every two levels add an extra d6 to the total, instead of having it just be a multiplier like a thief's backstab did 2nd edition.


I love the way 3E sneak attack works. My rogue nailed an unsuspecting guard for 8d6 +3 damage with a hairpick (+1 for the hairpick and +2str). That's like an avg of 31ish damage and it makes sense, if you strike a vital area there is no reason you shouldn't be able to kill someone with even a reasonably strong/pointed object.

"Suprise! Eat chopstick SCUM!!!"
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:54 am

kiryan wrote:spob axe and valhalla scepter, 6d4, avg 15 damage.


Feh, should have specified one handed PIERCING weapon since it's a discussion about rogues.
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:44 pm

All I want to know is when the witch-hunt will end. I find it horridly rediculous that rangers are still beating the war drums and attacking rogues when rogues still don't deal near as much damage as invokers. Area spells. Take away many of the area spells and leave inferno or swarm and doom. Upgrade rangers somehow (too lazy to think of a way that nobody else has though of before that I didn't already agree with 1million times).

It just seems to me that the rangers have been in a funk for years and years and years. They then see a new class (fixed class combining assassins/thieves) that out powers them in the damage depertment. They are increasingly pissed because monks were taken out and the excuse was their damage output. They then characterize rogues as being the new monks...which they really aren't. Rogues are just a lot closer to what melee should really be and they feel slighted because rangers are still massivly screwed up.

So, what should happen. Stop bitching about rogues. Stop with the grass is greener over there BS. Every time a new argument is brought up about melee being unbalanced, rogues are bashed. The validity and lucidity of these arguments deteriorates each time they are brought up. Instead of thinking rogues are too high, just realized that rangers are too low and caster damage added to multiple classes being able to silence/feeb !bash casters, etc.. has made zones retardedly easy.

Why not instead of fighting against the idea of rogues being good hitters, fight WITH the rogues to get melee to a balance point.

I'll gaurentee that the gods hardly ever look at these posts. I wouldn't if I were them. It's just a constant argument using the same tired arguments and some new crazy arguments that carry very little integrity to much of anything.

As far as getting any new new ideas that could fix melee, but may be drastic ideas imp'd...good luck. What I've witnessed thusfar in the years playing melee is that this is treated more as a bad theory in some science or trying to prove the validity of some odd pseudo-science. You put a great percentage of your effort trying to fix something one way. It ends up not being that great of an idea or theory when you're done. Instead of wasting your years devoted to said theory and actually coming up with a NEW theory, you just try to fix the one you've been working with. Unfortunately, as history has proved time and time again through countless centuries, this is just bad form. scrap the idea, salvage what you can, and start over. It's a lot of work, but it will make the mud 100% better in the long run....

I've never fully understood why so many good ideas have been presented but never used and rarely commented on. It's disgusting that there are numerous extreamly intelligent people who play and code here, yet nobody will try drasticly new GREAT ideas.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:49 pm

Kifle, your obvious rise in blood pressure over this thread humors me.
I find two types of "rogues" that respond to this thread. One is like
yourself who absolutely FREAK at the idea that rogues are overpowered
compared to the other melee classes. The other type is the one that
realizes there is a problem, and embraces fixing it.

Answer me this, wtf difference does it make what kind of damage
the invokers do if this is about MELEE BALANCE? We all know and
understand that there is an issue with area spells, and area damage. This
is a COMPLETELY seperate issue. As far as melee goes, rogues do more
damage than EVERYONE else. period. Not only that, but they have a
superb selection of skills to compliment their damage. Perhaps rogues
ARE at the proper notch for where melee should be compared to the rest
of the melee classes. but what difference would it make if the current
melee system is balanced around rogue damage currently, or balanced
around a lower point? as long as things are all "balanced" it shouldn't
matter if the high point is 20 damroll or 70. EVERY facet of this game
can be tweaked, so "balance" is something that can be attained in a
variety of ways.

All these rogues with this attitude of "omg, don't repress me!" is sickening.
And no, i have never, nor will i ever play a ranger, Kifle.
You said it yourself zones are "retardedly easy". If all melee classes were
"balanced" to "rogue" standard as it is now, zones would only get easier.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:34 am

While I understand where you're coming from, it's still wrong to encourage posts crying about how overpowered rogues are compared to all other melee classes. The only other class that SHOULD be able to keep up with rogues are rangers, which is why I used them as an example. I didn't freak out, but I just find it to be usless energy for people to whine about rogue damage when the obvious discrepency is with invoker damage. Yes, this is a melee balancing thread, but you must understand: To balance melee, you must also balance damage as a whole or else you have no guidepoint. First you take a look at how easy zones are. This is easy. Zones are cake because of a few things.

1) Area spells
2) !bash casters being so easy to silence/feeb/stun/earthquake/etc...
3) Rogue CR ability

Without taking care of these three things, there is no possible way you can ever hope to attain any sort of balance within melee. Why? Because lets say we up ranger/warrior/pally/etc.. damage up. Rangers are a tad more or less than rogue, then anti-paly/pally, then warrior. This is how it should be. Well, then we notice all zones being exponentially easier. More damage = easy zones. So then we either have to downgrade melee, because that's what will be seen as the problem because that's the only thing that was tweaked before zones went from super easy to "wake up at the end" easy. What should be done first fix the casters. Take away all these added options that make zones too easy. Lessen the amount of area damage spells by 90%. Maybe tweak the damage a bit down. Then you go to rangers/warriors/pallys and up their damage to that of the affore mentioned plan. Then you tweak them as necessary depending on their damage compared to invoker/caster damage.

If you want to go farther to incorperate a bit more balance you would want to make CR's harder. You do this by taking out perm sneak and the ability to combo sneak/hide. Then the rogue would be less over powered as opposed to the ranger...if they fix ranged (not sure if they have already).

Bing, Bam, Boom. Done. You have achieved balance.

Now, will it happen...probably not. Why? Well, it's been so long nobody wants to admit that the sorc class should have stayed sorc. Nobody wants to admit that room silence was a good thing because you gave up damage/speed for safty. Among other things. Nobody wants to scrap and move forward. We just keep on building over mistakes rather than taking the mistakes out completely and bring new and better things in.

None of this really effects me though. I quit playing a rogue and rolled an elementalist. I figured I'd ride the cheese wagon as long as it'll last.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:17 pm

Where i also see where you are coming from, you are just proposing
a different way of achieving the same thing. And i know you are entitled
to your opinion, as i am mine, but i have to disagree that "bing bam
boom" balance will be achieved. I bet it will take quite a bit more than
that. But we won't know 'til we see it, which will, at this pace, probbably
never happen anyway.


Del
Grizz
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:36 am
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Grizz » Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:15 pm

Personally, I feel that the Warrior should be the ultimate melee damage dealer. Ranger is a Sub-Class of Warrior as is the Paladin/Anti-Paladin. Rogue isn't even that. In all things combat the Warrior should reign supreme. Rangers should be removed and replaced with an Archer class imho.
Mogan: Paladin, Human(Active)



In the immortal words of Tagad, "F**K IT! CHARGE!"
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:33 pm

Delmair Aamoren wrote:Kifle, your obvious rise in blood pressure over this thread humors me.
I find two types of "rogues" that respond to this thread. One is like
yourself who absolutely FREAK at the idea that rogues are overpowered
compared to the other melee classes. The other type is the one that
realizes there is a problem, and embraces fixing it.

Answer me this, wtf difference does it make what kind of damage
the invokers do if this is about MELEE BALANCE? We all know and
understand that there is an issue with area spells, and area damage. This
is a COMPLETELY seperate issue.


I think Kifle's trying to say that the situation can be compared to a bunch of thugs robbing a bum for his change while a millionaire strolls by with a briefcase of cash.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:55 pm

Grizz wrote:Personally, I feel that the Warrior should be the ultimate melee damage dealer. Ranger is a Sub-Class of Warrior as is the Paladin/Anti-Paladin. Rogue isn't even that. In all things combat the Warrior should reign supreme. Rangers should be removed and replaced with an Archer class imho.


Slightly edited in a vain attempt at formatting:

< > h classes
CLASSES

Once you have selected the race of being you wish to play, you must
select a class. A class is the trade or profession at which your
character will excel. Not all classes are available for each race, as
it would be highly unlikely that an unintelligent, clumsy troll would
take up the demanding profession of Rogue. There are four main
"types" of classes (Fighters, Priests, Rogues and Magic-Users)
available, and the available classes are listed below the headings of
each one.

Code: Select all

Fighter              Priest            Rogue                Magic-User      Other

Warrior             Cleric            Rogue                Enchanter       Psionicist
Ranger             Druid             Bard                  Invoker
Paladin             Shaman         Battlechanter      Elementalist
Anti-Paladin                                          Necromancer
Dire Raider                                           Illusionist


For more information on each class, type: "help <class>"
For a list of each class's skills, type: "help skill_<class>"

Rangers/dires/antis/palis are no more a subclass of warrior than invokers are a subclass of enchanter. They're all derived from the concept of what a fighter class is. Someone probably just didn't feel like altering the !warrior flag to !fighter from the base DIKU code (kind of like how the !thief flag is still used for !rogues, bards, and battlechanters even though we don't have a thief class).
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sun Aug 29, 2004 10:44 pm

Grizz wrote:Personally, I feel that the Warrior should be the ultimate melee damage dealer. Ranger is a Sub-Class of Warrior as is the Paladin/Anti-Paladin. Rogue isn't even that. In all things combat the Warrior should reign supreme. Rangers should be removed and replaced with an Archer class imho.


Somehow, the fact that this is your opinion, doesn't surprise me.

The whole idea of sub-classes is to have variance. some of the variances
will/could/should be better tank ability at a cost of perhaps offense,
some could be better offense at the expense of loosing tanking ability.
The fact they are a sub-class, in this example, doesn't mean they are a
lesser class. Sub-class in this case just means "derivative of" or however
else you might want to put it.
Grizz
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:36 am
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Grizz » Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:53 pm

I stand by my opinion on this subject and my opinion of you. =)
Mogan: Paladin, Human(Active)



In the immortal words of Tagad, "F**K IT! CHARGE!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:00 pm

Dude, saying warriors should be the best hitters is like saying enchanters should deal the most damage spell-wise. Just poor logic.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Grizz
Sojourner
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 3:36 am
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Grizz » Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:58 pm

Kifle wrote:Dude, saying warriors should be the best hitters is like saying enchanters should deal the most damage spell-wise. Just poor logic.


I didn't say it was a good opinion. I just said that it was mine and that I am sticking to it. I do believe that warriors should be the best hitters. I have no opinion on the spell casters.

I believe that warriors should be the best combat class the way I believe that the cleric should be the best healers and that rogues should be the best lockpickers/pickpocketers. Granted my belief would work better in a Roleplaying game as opposed to a mud. Doesn't change my belief.

In a mud setting I would rather see skills define the player instead of labeling them into classes. Or at least break it down to the 4 basic classes and make the skill tree branch mightily for each. Remember this is just a thought and I don't remotely expect it to ever happen here. Nor would I suggest a change like this to happen.

You don't have to take me seriously as I am not trying to sway you one way or the other on this. It is all just opinion. And it is mine.
Mogan: Paladin, Human(Active)



In the immortal words of Tagad, "F**K IT! CHARGE!"

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests