Classleads - January 2015

Addama

We've got like four threads for that, not including the redundant S&B ones or the Engagisaz one.

Ernam

By that logic, this whole thread is redundant.  Anyhow, there are several classleads up for potential changes to Knights' stacked damage reduction that I'm sure would make for some good discussion.  

See classleads: 41 (putrefaction), 68 (rite of healing) ,69 (general damage reduction)
Other knight changes: 39 (fitness) , 71 (piety/gh/isaz)

Tael

Jarrod said:

Not really worth discussing Serpent classleads as they don't fall under the purview of the focused classlead round so they won't result in anything.

One thing I would like to see is a change to whichever the Alch phial is that reduces max health. It's fine as-is in terms of effect, but the recovery time on it is a bit ridiculous. The kind of thing I'd like to see instead of 1m tick up and 1m tick down, no variation would be:

If you avoid a tick of the phial, you recover one tick of health (current functionality) but also begin recovering at a rate of one tick per 15 seconds. The end result would be a recovery rate on par with most other classes from a full stack, about three minutes.

Example:

0:00 - phial tick that puts you to 50% health
1:00 - avoided phial tick via held breath/movement, 55% health
1:15 - 60%
1:30 - 65%
1:45 - 70%
2:00 - oops, took a tick, 65% health

Timing could be worked on to ensure it still has an impact, maybe increase the tick down to 10%, something needs to be done because 10  minutes after an extended fight is a ridiculously long time to have to wait to be 'recovered' from something.

I like the idea of an increasing rate of decay better. First minute you're out ticks up the current amount, second minute you're out ticks up twice the current amount, third minute you're out ticks up three times the current amount.

Vayne

Tael said:

Jarrod said:

Not really worth discussing Serpent classleads as they don't fall under the purview of the focused classlead round so they won't result in anything.

One thing I would like to see is a change to whichever the Alch phial is that reduces max health. It's fine as-is in terms of effect, but the recovery time on it is a bit ridiculous. The kind of thing I'd like to see instead of 1m tick up and 1m tick down, no variation would be:

If you avoid a tick of the phial, you recover one tick of health (current functionality) but also begin recovering at a rate of one tick per 15 seconds. The end result would be a recovery rate on par with most other classes from a full stack, about three minutes.

Example:

0:00 - phial tick that puts you to 50% health
1:00 - avoided phial tick via held breath/movement, 55% health
1:15 - 60%
1:30 - 65%
1:45 - 70%
2:00 - oops, took a tick, 65% health

Timing could be worked on to ensure it still has an impact, maybe increase the tick down to 10%, something needs to be done because 10  minutes after an extended fight is a ridiculously long time to have to wait to be 'recovered' from something.

I like the idea of an increasing rate of decay better. First minute you're out ticks up the current amount, second minute you're out ticks up twice the current amount, third minute you're out ticks up three times the current amount.

So in that scenario you could be totally recovered in about four minutes if you were reduced to 50% max health(the lowest it can take you down to) as opposed to about 10 as it is now.

Xith

Yeah this topic was kind of begging to be derailed. "Classleads for largest change in Achaean history? I'll make a single thread!" Kind of ensures nobody can discuss anything at length or in an intelligible way. I think the class forums would have served these better.

Leviticus

Ernam said:

By that logic, this whole thread is redundant.  Anyhow, there are several classleads up for potential changes to Knights' stacked damage reduction that I'm sure would make for some good discussion.  

See classleads: 41 (putrefaction), 68 (rite of healing) ,69 (general damage reduction)
Other knight changes: 39 (fitness) , 71 (piety/gh/isaz)

Disclaimer: I have a basic understanding of PVP in achaea and the mechanics behind it.
     In the last few years, artefacts have became more.. common (Loved the artefact packages sale, hope we get another one in next few months for tax season @Sarapis‌). It feels to me we are continuously tweaking (nerfing) classes due to the "OP"ness of certain artefacts combined with skills. One example of this was the monk limb damage ... change. Before the change monk was in an good place with maybe (correct me if I am wrong) second or third fastest prep time (Sylvan, ?? something goes here, monk). **That was if you had level 3 knuckles** Unartied monk was right on par with other classes.  Fast forward to the new change, a lot of people quit monk and went something else. Now people have paid thousands of dollars for their artefacts. I don't want to know how much I have paid but it is somewhere close to 10k. That is an extreme amount of money for anyone (except you oil tycoon babies). Let me bring this all together. I mentioned monk due to Classlead 41 mentioning monk in it's classlead.
     I am a little biased because now I am Infernal. But Putrefaction was nerfed a little bit ago to bring it in line with other damage reduction abilities. Runewardens have bashing runes. Paladins have rites along with Perform Hands. I don't think putrefaction needs to be changed. I believe monks shouldnt be able to kill me with pure damage except for instant kills. Which is why monk needs a reliable instant kill (been saying it for years)  not a 4 BBT in 30 second window nonsense which won't work against a good opponent in my experience. Now I know Iakmen and Penwise and Jhui and Nemutaur and Mizik and the list goes on all did amazing with monk. But the normal kid is not those people. I say we need to stop changing skillsets due to artefacts because it is making achaea a place (if it isn't already) where you NEED to have artefacts in order to play and that just isn't appealing to the masses. that is what that classlead said to me. Someone was angry because they couldn't outdamage an Infernal (with health arties) so they decided to nerf Putrefaction and Vigour (I have been there). Alright please school me if I am wrong cuz I am a noob.

Wessux

I'll level with you @Leviticus, it's a terrible classlead. I'm not gonna get into the rest of your post and nit pick little things because the bottom line is the classlead was a bad suggestion and that was your only real concern. It's cool bb. Putrefaction should be fine. 

Ernam

Leviticus said:

     I am a little biased because now I am Infernal. But Putrefaction was nerfed a little bit ago to bring it in line with other damage reduction abilities. Runewardens have bashing runes. Paladins have rites along with Perform Hands.....

Infernal damage mitigation is significantly higher than the things you compared it to, and I think it can be, should be, and is (in my classlead), argued that all three classes have too much damage reduction, so IMO, justifying Infernal being immune to damage due to the fact that Runie and Pallie are also immune to damage, doesn't make any sense.

Someone was angry because they couldn't outdamage an Infernal (with health arties) so they decided to nerf Putrefaction and Vigour (I have been there).

There is a pretty serious implication in this statement.  You seem to be heading into this line of discussion with one of your base assumptions being: "Infernals should not die to damage.".  This could easily be extrapolated into the statement that "Infernals, for some class balance reason, need to be immune to damage and damage-based-kill strategies."

I can empathize because a lot of people think this way, purely because knights, historically, always have had massive damage reduction, so why would anything change now?  Well, there are several good reasons for things to change.

1)  The whole class just changed.  If you're going to suggest significant changes to mechanics, doing it parallel to a total class overhaul is the perfect time - particularly when suggesting reductions to incredibly strong defensive mechanics alongside massive improvements to offensive affliction rate, hindrance, and simplicity of kills.

2)  There really is no basis for knights being inherently, since solo/group combat in Achaea has absolutely no need for a "tank"  and therefore has no need for classes that specialize in tanking damage.

3)  Class balance allows for every class to have strengths and weaknesses, but Knights are somehow the best in the game at mitigating both damage and venomlocks.



Re: monk stuff - yes, I think monk needs some serious attention.  However, the general attitude that we should just remove damage as an aspect of combat (which is what people are asking for, even if they don't realize it), is just a terrible idea.  Monk only kills people with damage, so nobody in the game should be immune to damage.  As a previous monk, I have to assume you can appreciate this, considering classes like apostate/infernal who are virtually unkillable, even with 21+ str.

Cooper

Leviticus, no need to worry about putrefaction being nerfed.

Fullplate was nerfed by an average of 10-15% for serious knights.
Algiz was removed from PvP.
Putrefaction (vs. cutting) was reduced by 50%.
Nimble reduces resistances by 10%.
Vigour was balanced to not be usable during most damage kills.
Knights don't dodge as much post race changes.
Moss/health sips were lowered during trait changes.
Defenses don't stack as well as they used to.
S&B defenses aren't nearly as good as people think - buckler is 2/2. We have to use buckler in order to be effective offensively. Anyone using SoA or tower is going to be 10% slower offensively, which is extremely relevant.
Physical damage vs. Knights has increased for the most relevant classes (monk/other knights) via mastery for dual cutting, torso damage for monks/all knights, dsb rune for Runewardens, ignite for the forestals, and bard is much faster now post weaponry changes.

Leviticus

Ernam said:

Leviticus said:

     I am a little biased because now I am Infernal. But Putrefaction was nerfed a little bit ago to bring it in line with other damage reduction abilities. Runewardens have bashing runes. Paladins have rites along with Perform Hands.....

Infernal damage mitigation is significantly higher than the things you compared it to, and I think it can be, should be, and is (in my classlead), argued that all three classes have too much damage reduction, so IMO, justifying Infernal being immune to damage due to the fact that Runie and Pallie are also immune to damage, doesn't make any sense.

Someone was angry because they couldn't outdamage an Infernal (with health arties) so they decided to nerf Putrefaction and Vigour (I have been there).

There is a pretty serious implication in this statement.  You seem to be heading into this line of discussion with one of your base assumptions being: "Infernals should not die to damage.".  This could easily be extrapolated into the statement that "Infernals, for some class balance reason, need to be immune to damage and damage-based-kill strategies."

I can empathize because a lot of people think this way, purely because knights, historically, always have had massive damage reduction, so why would anything change now?  Well, there are several good reasons for things to change.

1)  The whole class just changed.  If you're going to suggest significant changes to mechanics, doing it parallel to a total class overhaul is the perfect time - particularly when suggesting reductions to incredibly strong defensive mechanics alongside massive improvements to offensive affliction rate, hindrance, and simplicity of kills.

2)  There really is no basis for knights being inherently, since solo/group combat in Achaea has absolutely no need for a "tank"  and therefore has no need for classes that specialize in tanking damage.

3)  Class balance allows for every class to have strengths and weaknesses, but Knights are somehow the best in the game at mitigating both damage and venomlocks.



Re: monk stuff - yes, I think monk needs some serious attention.  However, the general attitude that we should just remove damage as an aspect of combat (which is what people are asking for, even if they don't realize it), is just a terrible idea.  Monk only kills people with damage, so nobody in the game should be immune to damage.  As a previous monk, I have to assume you can appreciate this, considering classes like apostate/infernal who are virtually unkillable, even with 21+ str.

Thanks for your insight, I see your point.

@Cooper didn't know about all that thank you.

Wessux

@Ernam Yeah I was much tankier as a runewarden. You're giving putrefaction way more credit than it deserves or you aren't giving runes enough. Between Jera giving you more health (which allows you to sip more), agliz reducing damage, berkana giving passive healing, armour runes given extra protection, uruz given passive healing, and dagaz healing afflictions it's much better defensively. Minus the ground runes I'd still rather have the runes than putrefaction and vigour. I die to damage. I die to it a lot. I'm not super tanky and I'm human with a level 1 sip ring and putrefaction and vigour. You want to talk about tanky look at all the cool thinks monk can do like kai heal, transmute, and numb. I've had some of the most untalented monks live through dsb setups because of those. I don't want to hear how infernal is over powered defensively, that's a stupid argument. If you had said runewarden I'd have at least entertained the thought. 

Arador

But his hyperbole is much more powerful than any actual reasoned argument! Sorry Wessux, you are getting nerfed. How dare you be immune to damage!?

Rangor

Cooper said:

Leviticus, no need to worry about putrefaction being nerfed.

Fullplate was nerfed by an average of 10-15% for serious knights.
Algiz was removed from PvP.
Putrefaction (vs. cutting) was reduced by 50%.
Nimble reduces resistances by 10%.
Vigour was balanced to not be usable during most damage kills.
Knights don't dodge as much post race changes.
Moss/health sips were lowered during trait changes.
Defenses don't stack as well as they used to.
S&B defenses aren't nearly as good as people think - buckler is 2/2. We have to use buckler in order to be effective offensively. Anyone using SoA or tower is going to be 10% slower offensively, which is extremely relevant.
Physical damage vs. Knights has increased for the most relevant classes (monk/other knights) via mastery for dual cutting, torso damage for monks/all knights, dsb rune for Runewardens, ignite for the forestals, and bard is much faster now post weaponry changes.

Most knights were raja. You forgot to mention that knights got raised to normal sips + gained a few con points in most cases.

Arador

Most were usually Mhun unless they could afford Arties to offset Raja sip balance. The only way to make Raja Knight work without arties was to use your ridiculous speed to hinder.

Jovolo

I miss the old differences between the races, tbh

More aptly, I enjoyed the distinct archetypes between the races. Being a slow but strong Troll, a quick but squishy Raja, the balanced Xorans and Satyrs, the intelligent Grooks, etc. 

Wessux

Jovolo said:

I miss the old differences between the races, tbh

More aptly, I enjoyed the distinct archetypes between the races. Being a slow but strong Troll, a quick but squishy Raja, the balanced Xorans and Satyrs, the intelligent Grooks, etc. 

I'm with you on that. I think the game is better this way, but it was a really cool feature . 

Rangor

Arador said:

Most were usually Mhun unless they could afford Arties to offset Raja sip balance. The only way to make Raja Knight work without arties was to use your ridiculous speed to hinder.

I would normally just disagree, but since that option of choice is removed for me. I thought we were talking about the kickass knights, not the "oh I pvp now and then" knights.

Arador

Like Septerra and Batista? Both Mhun. Most kick ass Raja Knights I ever knew were artied. Khoraji, Caine, Jarik, Taran etc. Can't recall any great ones without artefacts. 

Not saying Raja was a bad race, just saying that while we gained some tankiness, we also lost the insane speed that made those untanky Knights possible. Also Raja had insane dodging. 

Jovolo

Tynil and Kalvon come to mind for unartied Raja, but I also think a part of it is just that there never really were many good Knights that weren't artied. Voy was a Mhun too, iirc.

Cooper

Arador said:

Like Septerra and Batista? Both Mhun. Most kick ass Raja Knights I ever knew were artied. Khoraji, Caine, Jarik, Taran etc. Can't recall any great ones without artefacts. 

Not saying Raja was a bad race, just saying that while we gained some tankiness, we also lost the insane speed that made those untanky Knights possible. Also Raja had insane dodging. 

Batista never actually did much fighting, it was mostly theory stuff. I thought Septerra was artied, though.

Sip ring was pretty much mandatory to be a Raja as any class, though, and most of the notable fighters that were Raja had much more than that.

Ernam

I mean Rajamala was pretty much Nimble, at the time.  It'd be dumb to do anything else, especially if you're artefacted - which combined with knight damage reduction, made them glass cannons.  This essentially bound competitive knights to a single race (or two, if you count mhun - despite its low strength), which is why it was changed, and which is why it was an awesome change.

I will say that I still see pretty much the same thing now, just with different races (xoran, grook, etc), but at least the cost of choosing a different race for character development is significantly lowered thanks to racial specs (although you still sacrifice 1-3 of your mainstat to do so).

Jacen

Pretty sure raja was double nimble, and mhun was current nimble. 

Ernam

Jacen said:

Pretty sure raja was double nimble, and mhun was current nimble. 

What I was trying to say is that Raja was treated like Nimble, in that every competitive knight chose it, since it was by far the best choice for combat (particularly with artie).  Wasn't saying they worked identically.

Kuy

I wish I had come to this opinion just a little sooner.

I propose three things for puppetry/vodun in order to both retain flavour and reign them in.  No one should be able to kill you after an hour from across the continent, even if you are silly enough to just let them fashion you to death.  Not that it matters now, as classleads are closed.

1. Bring the hour timer down to fifteen minutes with the current mechanics.  This allows puppetry/vodun to retain it's group utility flavour (as you don't get that many fashions in current meta-game unless you've bound Maligus [which is a problem unrelated to Puppetry/Vondun and suitable only for discussion in Spiritlore]) without being such massive overkill 1v1.  After field-testing, the next negotiable step would be 10 minutes.  With the current incarnation, I would like to see the skills retain as much of their thoughtful group utility as possible without leaving them in the sad state they are in.

2. Make any offensive ability used on a target that is out of the current area cost double the fashions and have their requirements increased to match. This means a puppet with 102 (max) fashions effectively only has 51.  This severely limits exactly what you can do to someone across the continent.  Non-offensive actions that would not change: Spy, Status, Illusion, Listen, Inventory, and Leech.  Yes, this means that in order to travel to an ally who is in another area, you must have 60 fashions and it will cost you 10 fashions.  This severely dampens is use, and will mean leaving the fight costs you enough time to feel completely useless for doing so.  It means you will waste 10 fashions on one doll/puppet to get out of the fight, and 10 fashions on another doll/puppet to get back into the fight.

3. No ability in Puppetry/Vodun needs to be masked anymore.  The masked attacks are linked primarily with sneaky tricks that are rather silly and don't need to work anymore.  This includes concussion, dizzy, confusion, and puncture.