Forums Home Forum Rules Achaea.com Lore Wiki Vote for Achaea! IronRealms.com
Home› Everything Achaea› North of Thera

The Big Change - Combat

1…567911

Comments

  • GrandueGrandue
    There is nothing wrong with Arty Armour having better stats than regular armour, so long as it isn't like a 50% boost. There are already artifacts that reduce damage from different damage types, why not add cutting and blunt? Combat is being redesigned so that someone can't just sit there and mash F4 and damage you out anymore. I think it would be a step in the right direction to make it more difficult for someone to damage you out by laying on their bashing macro. Arty armour would have an impact in bashing, customization, and PVP last. It should help in raids and while hunting, but should be designed in such a way that the classes that rely on damage for their kills are still able to do the same kill sequence and have it result in a death with or without armour when fighting 1v1. Generally it seems that when a 1v1 damage finisher results in a death it doesn't just "barely" kill the person, the damage would put them hundreds if not a thousand or more below 0. Obviously this isn't the case every time, but I think that in the small percentage of instances where people "barely" die to a damage finisher, spending all of those credits for artefact armour is an acceptable compromise. I dunno, I could be completely off on this. It just seems like 95% of the time if I'm at a point where someone has prepped me for their damage finisher and goes in for the kill, I'm doomed whether I have armour that gives an extra 10% damage reduction or not. For the other 5% of times when I'm barely brought below zero, spending hundreds if not thousands of credits on armour is a reasonable trade off to avoid dying to something that barely killed you.
  • ErnamErnam
    There are only two artefacts that reduce damage, one of which being magic (because there is very little else which reduces it in existence), and the other of which already reduces physical damage.

    There are a ridiculous amount of things that already stack to reduce physical damage (to the point where 4-5 classes are already virtually immune to it).  4 of those classes just got the ability to use SoA as well.

    Adding even more stackable physical resistance is the opposite of what we need to be doing right now (There are quite a few active classleads suggesting nerfs to this).  Regardless of how that goes, he last thing we need to be doing is widening the DPS gap between artied and lesser/non artied players.  If the game needs more armor (which it does not), then fix it without making people pay USD to do it.

  • SenaSena
    edited January 2015
    I think the best way for artefact armour to offer higher stats/protection is to give them the same stats as forged armour, but make armour runes on them last a lot longer.

    I'd rather see artefact armour with bonuses unrelated to stats, though.
  • RispokRispok
    edited January 2015
    Sena said:
    I think the best way for artefact armour to offer higher stats/protection is to give them the same stats as forged armour, but make armour runes on them last a lot longer.

    I'd rather see artefact armour with bonuses unrelated to stats, though.
    Armour runes lasting longer seems like... Not great? They already last 30 ooc days as a runewarden. I would rather see some different benefits. I could see, for example, +1/+1 in order to balance it with forged gear, in tandem with something that's useful to every class. The idea of perma boar/moss/whatever isn't the worst, but seems like it might be dumb since so many people have tattoos for that already. Having all artefact armour do the same thing, regardless of type, would be kind of neat. Could put a whole bunch of useful but not hilariously imbalanced powers on them. Things that work no matter what your play style is.

    Marginal (like fractions of a second) reduction to moving too fast,
    Marginal (see above) reduction to writhe time,
    entering/leaving wilderness/harbours,
    sip balance,
    herb balance,
    probably other stuff too,
    and more other stuff.

    I know that people will likely rally against my suggestion of paying to reduce herb balance, but I used it merely as an example of something that could be reduced by like .05 seconds in tandem with a bunch of other crap that is not really all that useful by itself, but an acceptable perk when tied in with 12 other versions of itself that span the spectrum of play styles.

  • AustereAustere Tennessee
    Honestly, buffs like that would probably be more ridiculous than perma algiz or something similar.  Fractions of a second mean the difference in a lock and not a lock.  At least if you did something like permanent runes on armor, you can restrict it to where they do not stack with current runes.  This would make it a convenience item over a must have [not actually suggesting permanent algiz, just example]
  • RispokRispok
    Austere said:
    Honestly, buffs like that would probably be more ridiculous than perma algiz or something similar.  Fractions of a second mean the difference in a lock and not a lock.  At least if you did something like permanent runes on armor, you can restrict it to where they do not stack with current runes.  This would make it a convenience item over a must have [not actually suggesting permanent algiz, just example]
    I don't do combat, so I don't know how important these fractions are, but isn't .05 pretty much within the limits of lag? It just doesn't seem to me, as somebody who doesn't enjoy combat, like not that big of a deal while still being nice. Perhaps the exact values for each would have to be investigated closely, like a .2 second reduction on mount jump might be ok where as a .2 reduction on salve balance would be crazy.
  • SenaSena
    Rispok said:
    Armour runes lasting longer seems like... Not great? They already last 30 ooc days as a runewarden.
    It would be mostly useless for runewardens (so it's probably not the best idea). For everyone else though, armour runes lasting 12 (or even just 6) hours instead of 1 would make a pretty big difference.

    As for non-stat bonuses, I was thinking that armour could offer no benefits by default (aside from resetting/customisation), but have various addons available, like how artefact weapons can have asp added. There could be a limit to the number of addons you can have, if necessary. Some ideas:
    • Improved defence against denizens only (excepting player-owned denizens if possible, to prevent any combat benefit). Maybe resistances to all non-physical damage, or maybe tunable like alchemist robes, or maybe each resistance is a separate addon to purchase.
    • Improved cleanliness. Stinkiness effects wear off naturally after a short time, without needing to find water and scrub. Alternatively, greatly reduced balance cost for scrubbing the stench off. There's already a Shop of Wonders artefact that ensures the first scrub is successful.
    • Extended armour rune duration could be an addon, so runewardens just wouldn't bother getting it.
    • Make any attacks that bounce off your magical shield heal you for a small portion of the damage that would have been dealt. Or just a small static amount of healing if it can't easily be based on damage that wasn't dealt.
    • The ability to have a tattoo inked on the armour, giving you an extra tattoo slot.
    • An addon that does different things depending on the current weather. Movement bonuses in the rain; the heaviest storms give +1 move per second, lighter rain gives a small chance for each move to not count towards the limit. Improved damage against denizens when it's sunny. Improved defence against denizens when it's cloudy or dark. Dodging bonus in snow (the heavier the snow, the higher the bonus). No bonus if you're indoors. Really, this is just an excuse to suggest tying things into the weather system.
    • A chance to shrug/ignore denizen afflictions (ignoring player-owned denizens).
    • The armour builds up charges when struck, and when those charges reach a certain point you can spend them for some effect. Maybe each damage type adds a different charge (so there would be a cutting charge, a fire charge, etc.), and the charge can be spent for brief resistance to that damage type, so after taking a lot of cutting damage for example, you gain the ability to activate some cutting resistance for a short time. Or maybe just one charge that's built up from any type of damage, and you can spend it for some healing or regeneration (maybe of endurance or willpower rather than health). Or you can spend the charges to absorb a portion of the damage dealt to any allies in the room (reducing the damage they take) for a short time. Or lots of other things. For some effects, the charges would probably need to decay over time, while for others it would be fine to be able to hold them indefinitely.
    • I could go on for quite a while, but I'll stop here.
  • AustereAustere Tennessee
    Rispok said:
    Austere said:
    Honestly, buffs like that would probably be more ridiculous than perma algiz or something similar.  Fractions of a second mean the difference in a lock and not a lock.  At least if you did something like permanent runes on armor, you can restrict it to where they do not stack with current runes.  This would make it a convenience item over a must have [not actually suggesting permanent algiz, just example]
    I don't do combat, so I don't know how important these fractions are, but isn't .05 pretty much within the limits of lag? It just doesn't seem to me, as somebody who doesn't enjoy combat, like not that big of a deal while still being nice. Perhaps the exact values for each would have to be investigated closely, like a .2 second reduction on mount jump might be ok where as a .2 reduction on salve balance would be crazy.
    .05 seconds can be lag, yes, but if a serpent in Asia is lagging .05 seconds, and you are healing .05 seconds quicker on serverside curing using this armor, that's cutting a tenth of a second off their offense. That adds up over time. It just doesn't seem like a good idea. It would either be worthless or ridiculous.  I like the idea of minor buffs, such as mounting or movement, but no benefits that effect curing, please.  Too much is balanced around it to introduce any type of direct sway
  • WessuxWessux Chattanooga
    I would like to point out that everyone's armour got worse. Even my crap fullplate is better than new fullplate. People would pay 90k gold for armour that was really impressive. All artefact armour would do is put people who could afford/save for it back to where they were. I think artefact armour is a great idea. But I'll let the admins decided. Either way I'm happy with my custom, nondecay fullplate. :>
    Invest in a 9mm retirement plan.
  • TreyTrey
    First, how did it get worse? Second...

    Wessux said:
     Either way I'm happy with my custom, nondecay fullplate. :>
    F*** you :neutral_face: 

  • ErnamErnam
    I think by "everyone", he was referring to the handful of people who had top 1% armor.
  • JarrodJarrod
    I think a cool thing might be enchantment slots on armor. Artefact armor has 2/3/4 enchantment slots on it per upgrade level (can, for a small cost, change it between types of armor leather/scale/etc, or for free idk). You can enchant your armor with any the resistance enchantments normally reserved for rings, never fades.

    Provides a small, noticeable benefit that isn't a boost over what other players can get without credit investment, just a very nice convenience.
    image
    Cascades of quicksilver light streak across the firmament as the celestial voice of Ourania intones, "Oh Jarrod..."

  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USA
    I wouldn't say it was just the "1%" with good armor. Even I had a 100/103, and most established Knights that I know had better than I did. 90/90 was pretty much the universally-accepted "minimum" for good fullplate. I'm sure there were mid-level knights wearing less than 100/100, but I think a much larger portion of the population had at least one stat over 100 than you're giving credit for.

    The new 51/51 fullplate translates to 90/90 in the old system, so fullplate definitely did take a bit of a hit. I don't think that's unreasonable or anything, fullplate is still good, but what Wessux said is accurate. Reasonable artefact armor would just return us to where we were pre-change, at least where knights are concerned. I'd say that everyone was pretty used to wearing exceptional armor, though. Paying high dollar for ridiculous protection was the rule, not the exception, so everyone felt the change at least a little bit, and I don't think artefact armor would be inherently imbalanced unless it surpassed the level of protection already achieved by the 110/110 fullplates, 70/50 splintmails, and 45/25 ringmails, that were already in circulation.

    I'd be interested to see if anyone has/knows the "old" stats of the new armors, since I only got to see fullplate before they fixed it and it started showing the new way.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
  • AustereAustere Tennessee
    Josoul said:
    Austere said:
    Sena said:
    Does anyone have a list of what the armour stats were when you could still see the unreduced values (like fullplate was 90/90 instead of 51/51, for example)?
    @Sena:
    I thought I had scale too, but it looks like I missed it, sorry:

    a suit of polished field plate armour  Cutting%   43;  Blunt%   46
    a suit of steel chain mail                    Cutting%   60;  Blunt%   50
    a suit of ring mail                               Cutting%   43;  Blunt%   30
    Adding the rest: (cutting/blunt %)
    leather: 25/20
    splint: 56/33
    scale: 50/45

    and shields just because:
    buckler: 5/5
    banded: 15/15
    kite: 13/24
    cavalry: 8/8
    tower: 20/34
  • CynlaelCynlael
    edited January 2015
    100/100 translates to somewhere around 57/57 with the new display... Not really that much of a difference, considering diminishing returns with other resistances.

  • SarathaiSarathai
    Austere said:
    .05 seconds can be lag, yes, but if a serpent in Asia is lagging .05 seconds, and you are healing .05 seconds quicker on serverside curing using this armor, that's cutting a tenth of a second off their offense. That adds up over time.
    You should come to Australia sometime and try out my .300-on-a-good-day ping. :\
    - (Eleusis): Ellodin says, "The Fissure of Echoes is Sarathai's happy place."
    - With sharp, crackling tones, Kyrra tells you, "The ladies must love you immensely."
    - (Eleusian Ranger Techs): Savira says, "Most of the hard stuff seem to have this built in code like: If adventurer_hitting_me = "Sarathai" then send("terminate and selfdestruct")."
    - Makarios says, "Serve well and perish."
    - Xaden says, "Xaden confirmed scrub 2017."



  • CooperCooper
    Most real Knights had better than 100/100, or had  90/105 and a 105/90 for different classes. You can't argue that going to 90/90 wasn't a significant nerf. 

  • RangorRangor
    I will buy one leather armour of EVADE plz.
    image
  • RangorRangor
    edited January 2015
    Nvm.
    image
  • KinilanKinilan
    Rangor said:
    Cooper said:
    Most real Knights had better than 100/100, or had  90/105 and a 105/90 for different classes. You can't argue that going to 90/90 wasn't a significant nerf. 
    Except 90/90 now does not equal 90/90 then.
      No, but 51/51 now = 90/90 then. Knights took a 10%-11% hit in blunt and cutting rediction.
  • GrandueGrandue
    Ernam said:
    There are only two artefacts that reduce damage, one of which being magic (because there is very little else which reduces it in existence), and the other of which already reduces physical damage.

    There are a ridiculous amount of things that already stack to reduce physical damage (to the point where 4-5 classes are already virtually immune to it).  4 of those classes just got the ability to use SoA as well.

    Adding even more stackable physical resistance is the opposite of what we need to be doing right now (There are quite a few active classleads suggesting nerfs to this).  Regardless of how that goes, he last thing we need to be doing is widening the DPS gap between artied and lesser/non artied players.  If the game needs more armor (which it does not), then fix it without making people pay USD to do it.


    Is there truly a RIDICULOUS amount of things that already stack to reduce physical damage? Of those 4-5 classes you claim are virtually immune to physical damage, does that stop them from dying to a skilled combatant?

    Combat is being changed so that there is a necessary strategy that needs to be followed in order to secure a kill. They seem to be making it so you can't just dump a few thousand credits into offensive artifacts and then throw a few meteors in the air and lay on a damage macro until they run or die. Armour damage reduction was reduced pretty significantly with this change (10%-15% in some instances), adding in artifact armor with higher stats would just bring the higher-end armor up to where was before the change, which people paid high prices for anyway.

    When the changes were made we asked if they were releasing artifact armor and they said that they had already planned on it. I would say that they accounted for artifact armor stats when they decided the stats for non-arty armor, which may be one of the reasons armor damage reduction has been reduced.

    Is it necessary? Of course not, if it was necessary then making the armor an artifact wouldn't be a reasonable fix. But just because it isn't a necessity doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It won't break the game or make it impossible for lesser/non artied players to kill players with more artefacts, especially with how combat is changing. A non-artied, skilled combatant will always beat a player who is artied to the brim but sucks at combat and relies on their artifacts to save them. With two equally skilled combatants, the one who is heavily artied SHOULD have an advantage over the one who is unartied. 

    Let's be real man, they just moved all the gold generating skills out of the classes, so now anyone can learn them to make money to purchase artifacts. If they don't want to spend USD to grab an edge in combat, they can start making concoctions or forging or enchanting and do it the slower way. Things are getting better, not worse, and artifact armor is one of those better things.


  • ErnamErnam
    edited January 2015

    @Grandue regardless of whether or not the end result is higher or equal to "old" armor, if they make artefact damage reduce pvp DPS they're just widening the gap between artied and unartied DPS, making combat even more inaccessible and unrealistic for beginners and intermediate players, and simply making it more expensive for the high-end players, just to have what we already had for free before.

    In answer to your other question: "Of those 4-5 classes you claim are virtually immune to physical damage, does that stop them from dying to a skilled combatant?"...

    The answer is a pure yes, and (as I stated), particularly for monk.  I have shown multiple times that even with 21-23str (unattainable for most players), with every single level 3 artefact available, apostates, infernals, and dragons are capable of tanking (with maximum pre-damage momentum) a double leg break, kai enfeeble, and two consecutive level 2 torso break BBTs, without touching their keyboard.  In fact, in one example, an Infernal came out of the combo with more health after the BBTs than he had before them.

    Now,     consider the fact that unlike my two characters, most players don't have every offensive artefact available to them, and factor in that the 4-BBT kill method for monks and AXK are both not just virtually, but actually impossible against anyone other than a hypothetical, essentially suicidal player.

    Is this just a monk issue?  No.  Monks are the only class that rely purely on damage to kill people, but many other classes* still do rely on damage as an aspect to offensive combat.  People keep trying to submit "There are other way to kill people", but this logic seems to be based in this weird assumption that this should ever be necessary.  You're basically arguing that these classes should be immune to damage, when you say that people should simply abandon it and focus on other kill strategies.  Well, this argument might have more weight if that were possible for all other classes (which it is not), and if Knights weren't also coincidentally the hardest classes in the game to venomlock due to Fitness (and passive healing for runie/pally).

    I mean, are you just saying that a knight who doesn't want to die should simply never die?  Because it really, really does seem like a lot of people seem to actually believe this.

    *examples of other classes who rely on damage

    Priests rely on health pressure from smite to force people to sip health instead of mana if possible.  If people can ignore 70% of smite damage, regen+potash is going to keep them at 90%+ allowing them to constantly sip mana, negating a major aspect of class balance for priest offense.

    Sylvans rely on damage as their only alternative to heartseed is lacerate kills, which heavily rely on pre-damage leading into kills.

    Knights rely heavily on pre-damage to ensure that sub 100% DSBs (nearly all of them) actually kill people instead of just looking really cool.  Ignoreable DPS == ignorable DSBs == zero kills.


    Question:  Why should knights just get to ignore these aspects of class balance?  Is there something inherent about Knight classes which entitles them to this incredibly powerful defense?  I submit that there is no reason at all for it, particularly since their classically slow and meager prep is no longer either slow or meager.

  • AradorArador
    Citational logs please.

  • JovoloJovolo
    Yes. I find it very difficult to believe an Infernal came out of a skilled Monk finisher with more health than when it began without touching their keyboard. You need to provide evidence when you make such claims.
  • KaedholKaedhol
    edited January 2015
    Uh well, does "without touching their keyboard" just mean "without doing anything offensively"? Don't most players use automated curing? And what could the infernal do offensively when prone?
  • JovoloJovolo
    Well they have vigour and tumble. I assume 'not touching their keyboard' means neither of those, otherwise the original statement was a bit disingenuous.
Sign In or Register to comment.