I'm gonna try to be brief with this post. I've noticed some oddities on test:
TM:
I speculated in the magic folder a few weeks ago that something may be wrong with TM based off of the anecdotal evidence of someone 1-shotting a goblin with a 10 mana BURN.
Well, there's a big issue with TM, specifically DFA TM. It seems to be relevant to both LB and BURN but I'm guessing that it applies to DFA TM across the boards.
A 4/5 second prepped 55 mana BURN from a MM with approx the same TM:Evade was knocking 25% off of Gort's vitality. They had trouble even hitting him with other TM spells.
Normally, setup is required to achieve these kind of ridiculous numbers. Here, no stuns. No debuffs. Nothing. Just targ 55 burn, wait 4-5 seconds, cast. 10 mana burns with a 1/2 sec prep were doing around 10% vitality damage. Crazy-high damage.
SLS is also doing crazy amounts of damage. Ticks on prime do around 10-15% to a stunned+prone Gort and this is considered OP. Ticks on test from a MM with less TM do around 25% damage to a prone Gort.
I would say normal TM spells are underpowered and DFA TM spells are grossly overpowered.
Backstab:
Backstab, which ironically is also DFA, seems to be doing a lot of damage even when the person stabbing is outclassed, and a whole lot of damage when they're at-level.
And almost nothing against barriers.
No tenacity, 30% - 20% - 15%.
Tenacity, 2% - 0% - 0%.
I'm almost confident it's vitality barrier + barrier doing something strange together.
Personally, I think Backstab is doing too much damage rank-for-rank, even as an alpha strike.
Thrown:
So I'm not sure if it's the stance change or what, but I'm having trouble consistently hitting people that I outrank by 500. With 1419 LT, I tried against a subject with 1410 evade, 1230 shield and could not hit him at all, even with HURL. With Eagle up, I still could not hit him at all, even with HURL. I tried a throwing axe and still could not hit him at all. I'm almost confident something is broken with Thrown since I'm getting the same message of 'barely blocks' with both the 900 rank opponent and the 1400 rank opponent. From my own personal experience, this has never happened to me in prime.
To add to this, I fought that same character on prime yesterday and did not have much trouble hitting him, fully buffed vs fully buffed. So I can hit him with THROW in prime fine, but I cannot even hit him with HURL on test. Something wacky is going on.
Lastly:
Capping shield at combination of stance points.
< You lob a kertig large horseshoe at xxx. xxx evades.
The large horseshoe lands nearby!
The messaging for the the new 'parry stance swap' is backwards. If I attack bob, I get the message that his stance is being shifted. He gets no message.
Also, the message happens regardless of stance. If I'm 100 evade 100 shield 4 parry and bob throws his hammer at me, he gets the stance swap message even though I'm 100/100.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
GORTEOUS
GERSTEINJ2
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 04:04 AM CST
<<Backstab:
Backstab, which ironically is also DFA, seems to be doing a lot of damage even when the person stabbing is outclassed, and a whole lot of damage when they're at-level.
And almost nothing against barriers.
No tenacity, 30% - 20% - 15%.
Tenacity, 2% - 0% - 0%.
I'm almost confident it's vitality barrier + barrier doing something strange together.
Personally, I think Backstab is doing too much damage rank-for-rank, even as an alpha strike.>>
could you give the stats involved including any bonuses that might have been up on the thief? if I manage to get my updated plat-necro copied into test I'll test it vs my thief, both are similar level.
<<If I can't cast thunderclap, you can't summon the dark lord of the abyss to devour the flesh of the innocent>>
Backstab, which ironically is also DFA, seems to be doing a lot of damage even when the person stabbing is outclassed, and a whole lot of damage when they're at-level.
And almost nothing against barriers.
No tenacity, 30% - 20% - 15%.
Tenacity, 2% - 0% - 0%.
I'm almost confident it's vitality barrier + barrier doing something strange together.
Personally, I think Backstab is doing too much damage rank-for-rank, even as an alpha strike.>>
could you give the stats involved including any bonuses that might have been up on the thief? if I manage to get my updated plat-necro copied into test I'll test it vs my thief, both are similar level.
<<If I can't cast thunderclap, you can't summon the dark lord of the abyss to devour the flesh of the innocent>>
2DUMBARSE
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 09:32 AM CST
>Thrown
This is purely speculation on my part based on anecdata, but I'm wondering if at least part of this is a consequence of our past thrown experience using OF buffs. I think part of what made thrown so lethal in 3.0 was that most of the guilds using it at-level, I assume, had thrown OF buffs. The OF buffs were so good that they almost negated any accuracy or damage penalty from weapon type.
I'm actually starting to feel the shield + two-hander penalty now, although the skill buffs and disablers help. Thrown without any skill buff is sometimes frustratingly inaccurate even on things that appraise like I should have no trouble attacking them even when they're debilitated and I'm hurling (the throwing kind, not the throwing up kind).
This is purely speculation on my part based on anecdata, but I'm wondering if at least part of this is a consequence of our past thrown experience using OF buffs. I think part of what made thrown so lethal in 3.0 was that most of the guilds using it at-level, I assume, had thrown OF buffs. The OF buffs were so good that they almost negated any accuracy or damage penalty from weapon type.
I'm actually starting to feel the shield + two-hander penalty now, although the skill buffs and disablers help. Thrown without any skill buff is sometimes frustratingly inaccurate even on things that appraise like I should have no trouble attacking them even when they're debilitated and I'm hurling (the throwing kind, not the throwing up kind).
GORTEOUS
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 12:49 PM CST
>> This is purely speculation on my part based on anecdata, but I'm wondering if at least part of this is a consequence of our past thrown experience using OF buffs.
I've compared it both buffed and unbuffed in 3.1. Same diff, so I don't think so. If anything, it should be more effective in 3.1 since buffs no longer have a rank cap.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
I've compared it both buffed and unbuffed in 3.1. Same diff, so I don't think so. If anything, it should be more effective in 3.1 since buffs no longer have a rank cap.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
DR-KODIUS
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 12:57 PM CST
>>A 4/5 second prepped 55 mana BURN from a MM with approx the same TM:Evade was knocking 25% off of Gort's vitality. They had trouble even hitting him with other TM spells.
Normally, setup is required to achieve these kind of ridiculous numbers. Here, no stuns. No debuffs. Nothing. Just targ 55 burn, wait 4-5 seconds, cast. 10 mana burns with a 1/2 sec prep were doing around 10% vitality damage. Crazy-high damage.
Couple of thoughts -
DFA has been overpowered in 3.x because DR is a 2-defense game, and DFA ignores 2 defenses. I'll have to double-check when I get home, but I believe you are only using evasion. Otherwise there should be absolutely no way to hit you with a 1/2 second target. The penalty is massive. Likewise, the bonus damage is massive when fully targeted. This has nothing to do with my damage changes, its defense rewrites that are quite complicated. I've only added them for critters so far.
How do normal TM spells function?
>>SLS is also doing crazy amounts of damage. Ticks on prime do around 10-15% to a stunned+prone Gort and this is considered OP. Ticks on test from a MM with less TM do around 25% damage to a prone Gort.
We doubled the damage from TM (more or less) so that sounds about right. I have not rebalanced pulsing TM spell damage yet. I expect that to go down by about 33%. So say, 15% damage per hit. Again, a SLICE or THRUST from a ME should be doing about 5% of your vitality per hit. Being prone/stunned is also a massive penalty. You are likely losing 40% of your defenses and so the attacker is getting capped bonuses to damage. Trying using your Berserk to standup and clear the stun?
>>Backstab
A fully targeted Longbow was doing 18-22% of my vitality against a same-circle enemy. The backstab alpha is intended to be a little above this. And again, defense against DFA is not properly balanced. I balance based on DPS. And the DPS of a longbow shot or backstab is comparable to that of several SLICE attacks in a row from a ME weapon.
>>Barriers
We know these are broken, but lack the resources to fix them right now. Still, those results are very odd... I'll dig tonight.
>>Thrown
I've heard a lot of complaints and need to revisit the numbers. Didn't think I reduced the to-hit by that much, only the damage. Might have mistyped a number someplace. Horseshoes are NOT throwing weapons and will NOT have good accuracy or damage :P Yes, this was a nerf because people were abusing damage loopholes and weight loopholes for items never intended to be awesome at throwing. Still, might have overdone it a bit.
>>Debug message
Yeah I did it from the viewpoint of the attacker since that is what I usually was when I tested. I'll remove that too, but wanted it so players knew when it was happening.
Thank you for the feedback! I'll post an update once reviews, changes and checks are complete.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Normally, setup is required to achieve these kind of ridiculous numbers. Here, no stuns. No debuffs. Nothing. Just targ 55 burn, wait 4-5 seconds, cast. 10 mana burns with a 1/2 sec prep were doing around 10% vitality damage. Crazy-high damage.
Couple of thoughts -
DFA has been overpowered in 3.x because DR is a 2-defense game, and DFA ignores 2 defenses. I'll have to double-check when I get home, but I believe you are only using evasion. Otherwise there should be absolutely no way to hit you with a 1/2 second target. The penalty is massive. Likewise, the bonus damage is massive when fully targeted. This has nothing to do with my damage changes, its defense rewrites that are quite complicated. I've only added them for critters so far.
How do normal TM spells function?
>>SLS is also doing crazy amounts of damage. Ticks on prime do around 10-15% to a stunned+prone Gort and this is considered OP. Ticks on test from a MM with less TM do around 25% damage to a prone Gort.
We doubled the damage from TM (more or less) so that sounds about right. I have not rebalanced pulsing TM spell damage yet. I expect that to go down by about 33%. So say, 15% damage per hit. Again, a SLICE or THRUST from a ME should be doing about 5% of your vitality per hit. Being prone/stunned is also a massive penalty. You are likely losing 40% of your defenses and so the attacker is getting capped bonuses to damage. Trying using your Berserk to standup and clear the stun?
>>Backstab
A fully targeted Longbow was doing 18-22% of my vitality against a same-circle enemy. The backstab alpha is intended to be a little above this. And again, defense against DFA is not properly balanced. I balance based on DPS. And the DPS of a longbow shot or backstab is comparable to that of several SLICE attacks in a row from a ME weapon.
>>Barriers
We know these are broken, but lack the resources to fix them right now. Still, those results are very odd... I'll dig tonight.
>>Thrown
I've heard a lot of complaints and need to revisit the numbers. Didn't think I reduced the to-hit by that much, only the damage. Might have mistyped a number someplace. Horseshoes are NOT throwing weapons and will NOT have good accuracy or damage :P Yes, this was a nerf because people were abusing damage loopholes and weight loopholes for items never intended to be awesome at throwing. Still, might have overdone it a bit.
>>Debug message
Yeah I did it from the viewpoint of the attacker since that is what I usually was when I tested. I'll remove that too, but wanted it so players knew when it was happening.
Thank you for the feedback! I'll post an update once reviews, changes and checks are complete.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
MOCKERJB
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 01:46 PM CST
Kodius, for my part, from the mage side of things, burn did seem to be doing overpowered damage vs a cloth wearing opponent, without full prep. I wasn't the one testing 1/2 snap cast burns against Gort, but I was able to duplicate his results with 55 mana casts at 5 second preps. Burn is hitting a little too hard there. Granted, it was against cloth, and Toad form mitigated the damage by something like half (Gort can correct me there if I'm wrong, but I think it was around half). Nonetheless, the burn damage and accuracy seemed over the top. Notably, I have not noticed burn performing the same way against creatures. It actually hits weaker than PD and DO vs cabalists, but I suspect they are probably strong against fire damage (and burn is like 90% fire I think)?
I think accuracy might be the first step problem with Burn as DFA (as you noted) because the other TM spells are not performing the same way against the same target. I miss Gort almost every time with fully targeted 100 mana PDs and DOs, but I hit him very hard almost every time with 55 mana burns with a 5 second target (full target is about 8-9 seconds for me). Burn might just be blowing through defenses so hard via the DFA that it's hitting for nastier damage than it otherwise should be. The DFA adjustment you mentioned (making DFA just test a penalized second defense instead of absolutely no second defense) may fix this entirely.
I'm going to try burn vs plate when I can find someone to test (Warb?).
SLS is hitting too hard too, but it's not pulsing very quickly after the latest change. I think a 33% downtweak would be about perfect.
I think accuracy might be the first step problem with Burn as DFA (as you noted) because the other TM spells are not performing the same way against the same target. I miss Gort almost every time with fully targeted 100 mana PDs and DOs, but I hit him very hard almost every time with 55 mana burns with a 5 second target (full target is about 8-9 seconds for me). Burn might just be blowing through defenses so hard via the DFA that it's hitting for nastier damage than it otherwise should be. The DFA adjustment you mentioned (making DFA just test a penalized second defense instead of absolutely no second defense) may fix this entirely.
I'm going to try burn vs plate when I can find someone to test (Warb?).
SLS is hitting too hard too, but it's not pulsing very quickly after the latest change. I think a 33% downtweak would be about perfect.
ZUBBA
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 02:12 PM CST
So, if I follow correctly... a single shot TM spell at middle prep should equate to a single shot with a bow, all else being equal, correct?
MOCKERJB
ASHBOMB
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 02:27 PM CST
>>TM:
I speculated in the magic folder a few weeks ago that something may be wrong with TM based off of the anecdotal evidence of someone 1-shotting a goblin with a 10 mana BURN.
Well, there's a big issue with TM, specifically DFA TM. It seems to be relevant to both LB and BURN but I'm guessing that it applies to DFA TM across the boards.
A 4/5 second prepped 55 mana BURN from a MM with approx the same TM:Evade was knocking 25% off of Gort's vitality. They had trouble even hitting him with other TM spells.
Normally, setup is required to achieve these kind of ridiculous numbers. Here, no stuns. No debuffs. Nothing. Just targ 55 burn, wait 4-5 seconds, cast. 10 mana burns with a 1/2 sec prep were doing around 10% vitality damage. Crazy-high damage.
SLS is also doing crazy amounts of damage. Ticks on prime do around 10-15% to a stunned+prone Gort and this is considered OP. Ticks on test from a MM with less TM do around 25% damage to a prone Gort.
I would say normal TM spells are underpowered and DFA TM spells are grossly overpowered.
My anecdotal goblin slaying was with ALA, not burn. I have ~400 magics.
I have yet to see anyone else post a goblin destruction, but if I missed it, apologies.
I speculated in the magic folder a few weeks ago that something may be wrong with TM based off of the anecdotal evidence of someone 1-shotting a goblin with a 10 mana BURN.
Well, there's a big issue with TM, specifically DFA TM. It seems to be relevant to both LB and BURN but I'm guessing that it applies to DFA TM across the boards.
A 4/5 second prepped 55 mana BURN from a MM with approx the same TM:Evade was knocking 25% off of Gort's vitality. They had trouble even hitting him with other TM spells.
Normally, setup is required to achieve these kind of ridiculous numbers. Here, no stuns. No debuffs. Nothing. Just targ 55 burn, wait 4-5 seconds, cast. 10 mana burns with a 1/2 sec prep were doing around 10% vitality damage. Crazy-high damage.
SLS is also doing crazy amounts of damage. Ticks on prime do around 10-15% to a stunned+prone Gort and this is considered OP. Ticks on test from a MM with less TM do around 25% damage to a prone Gort.
I would say normal TM spells are underpowered and DFA TM spells are grossly overpowered.
My anecdotal goblin slaying was with ALA, not burn. I have ~400 magics.
I have yet to see anyone else post a goblin destruction, but if I missed it, apologies.
GORTEOUS
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 02:54 PM CST
>> Horseshoes are NOT throwing weapons and will NOT have good accuracy or damage
This was not a loophole. They are templated as light thrown. They were designed for light thrown:
52 stone
Compare this with a capped light haralun throwing axe, which is only 7 stones lighter:
45 stone
You're misunderstanding where the loophole was. Throwing a 135 stone greatsword, or 112 stone lance was the loophole:
Notice how it doesn't app as a thrown weapon. Notice how it was wasn't designed to be thrown. Using thrown weapons designed to be thrown is not a loophole.
>> reduced the to-hit by that much
I don't think you should've nerfed it at all. Why? Because you already nerfed DPS by 33-50% with the RT increase. No further nerf was necessary.
In effect, you've overnerfed it. Which is what I was getting at in that other thread. I'm not saying it's final or claiming that was your intention; I'm saying that's what happened.
>> 1/2 second target.
1\2. I didn't mean fraction.
>> Again, a SLICE or THRUST from a ME should be doing about 5% of your vitality per hit.
These do not have the accuracy, nor lack of RT/cost to perform as SLS. Right now it's a steamroller far worse than thrown weapons ever were.
>> A fully targeted Longbow was doing 18-22% of my vitality against a same-circle enemy. The backstab alpha is intended to be a little above this.
A fully targetted longbow does not have near the accuracy of Backstab. Longbow requires an actual setup to get decent accuracy with, and still does not do that kind of damage. Backstab requires almost no setup.
I'm not trying to insult with this comment, but can we do some tests with actual players?
>> How do normal TM spells function?
From what I've seen and the numbers rank-for-rank that I've done, they suck pretty hardcore. Maybe some other people could input on it though - specifically non-DFA TM.
>> Thank you for the feedback!
Np. I can substantiate all these claims in test if necessary. I actually prefer to substantiate my claims so as to not give the impression that I've overlooked something, or that there was anything to be overlooked in my calculations.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
This was not a loophole. They are templated as light thrown. They were designed for light thrown:
52 stone
| A kertig large horseshoe is a light thrown and light blunt melee-ranged weapon. |
| A kertig large horseshoe trains the light thrown and small blunt skills. |
Compare this with a capped light haralun throwing axe, which is only 7 stones lighter:
45 stone
| A light haralun throwing axe is a light thrown and medium edged melee-ranged weapon. |
| A light haralun throwing axe trains the light thrown and small edged skills. |
You're misunderstanding where the loophole was. Throwing a 135 stone greatsword, or 112 stone lance was the loophole:
| A kertig lance is a pike pole-ranged weapon. |
| A kertig lance trains the polearm skill. |
Notice how it doesn't app as a thrown weapon. Notice how it was wasn't designed to be thrown. Using thrown weapons designed to be thrown is not a loophole.
>> reduced the to-hit by that much
I don't think you should've nerfed it at all. Why? Because you already nerfed DPS by 33-50% with the RT increase. No further nerf was necessary.
In effect, you've overnerfed it. Which is what I was getting at in that other thread. I'm not saying it's final or claiming that was your intention; I'm saying that's what happened.
>> 1/2 second target.
1\2. I didn't mean fraction.
>> Again, a SLICE or THRUST from a ME should be doing about 5% of your vitality per hit.
These do not have the accuracy, nor lack of RT/cost to perform as SLS. Right now it's a steamroller far worse than thrown weapons ever were.
>> A fully targeted Longbow was doing 18-22% of my vitality against a same-circle enemy. The backstab alpha is intended to be a little above this.
A fully targetted longbow does not have near the accuracy of Backstab. Longbow requires an actual setup to get decent accuracy with, and still does not do that kind of damage. Backstab requires almost no setup.
I'm not trying to insult with this comment, but can we do some tests with actual players?
>> How do normal TM spells function?
From what I've seen and the numbers rank-for-rank that I've done, they suck pretty hardcore. Maybe some other people could input on it though - specifically non-DFA TM.
>> Thank you for the feedback!
Np. I can substantiate all these claims in test if necessary. I actually prefer to substantiate my claims so as to not give the impression that I've overlooked something, or that there was anything to be overlooked in my calculations.
IM: Dannyboy00001111
"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."
MOCKERJB
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 03:12 PM CST
Gort, I was testing SLS earlier today and it looks like (vs critters) it is less accurate than normal TM. When you were testing it before with the MM, were you doing it with the prone etc stuff? I note it only because it was not my experience today that SLS was as accurate as a targeted spell. It whiffed on about 1/3 of pulses in cabalists, and I never whiff single cast TM in there even at 4-6 second targets.
As I noted before, I agree a 33% damage nerf is in order. What I haven't been able to figure out is where the cap is for the spell or how it's supposed to be pulsing, but I'll post in MMs about that.
As I noted before, I agree a 33% damage nerf is in order. What I haven't been able to figure out is where the cap is for the spell or how it's supposed to be pulsing, but I'll post in MMs about that.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 03:17 PM CST
>>What I haven't been able to figure out is where the cap is for the spell
Wouldn't discern say this? Or just prepping at 999 and checking where the spell deflates itself down to when you check room power?
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Wouldn't discern say this? Or just prepping at 999 and checking where the spell deflates itself down to when you check room power?
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
MOCKERJB
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 03:20 PM CST
Discern doesn't, but the giant prep worked--cap for the spell moved from 25 to 50.
2DUMBARSE
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 04:46 PM CST
>>Thrown
>I've heard a lot of complaints and need to revisit the numbers. Didn't think I reduced the to-hit by that much, only the damage. Might have mistyped a number someplace. Horseshoes are NOT throwing weapons and will NOT have good accuracy or damage :P Yes, this was a nerf because people were abusing damage loopholes and weight loopholes for items never intended to be awesome at throwing. Still, might have overdone it a bit.
That makes me feel SO much better. I've been lamenting the loss of a thrown buff for at-level hunting for a while now (in test) because it just feels so inaccurate.
>I've heard a lot of complaints and need to revisit the numbers. Didn't think I reduced the to-hit by that much, only the damage. Might have mistyped a number someplace. Horseshoes are NOT throwing weapons and will NOT have good accuracy or damage :P Yes, this was a nerf because people were abusing damage loopholes and weight loopholes for items never intended to be awesome at throwing. Still, might have overdone it a bit.
That makes me feel SO much better. I've been lamenting the loss of a thrown buff for at-level hunting for a while now (in test) because it just feels so inaccurate.
DR-KODIUS
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 08:20 PM CST
Heh, ok please let up on the overbold :P
I was mistaken on the horseshoes. When time allows I need to revisit that code.
>>These do not have the accuracy, nor lack of RT/cost to perform as SLS. Right now it's a steamroller far worse than thrown weapons ever were.
SLICE and THRUST should be more accurate than SLS. Again, might be something misbehaving.
>>A fully targetted longbow does not have near the accuracy of Backstab. Longbow requires an actual setup to get decent accuracy with, and still does not do that kind of damage. Backstab requires almost no setup.
True, backstab is sometimes more accurate - but you can only alpha-backstab once on a target. Backstab also requires you to be in hiding - not easy/possible in all cases or against all opponents. Oh, and it also requires its own special skill.
>>I'm not trying to insult with this comment, but can we do some tests with actual players?
I've worked 16+ hour days every day this week, so probably not until this weekend. I did a moderate amount of player testing with BS. On critters it looks fine. On players *I think a better balance is currently impossible without a total defense/barrier rewrite*.
>>I can substantiate all these claims in test if necessar
No, I have no problems with your claims. But please try to test in a less slanted environment some time. Prone/Stunned is one hell of a penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if you die quicker in that situation.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
I was mistaken on the horseshoes. When time allows I need to revisit that code.
>>These do not have the accuracy, nor lack of RT/cost to perform as SLS. Right now it's a steamroller far worse than thrown weapons ever were.
SLICE and THRUST should be more accurate than SLS. Again, might be something misbehaving.
>>A fully targetted longbow does not have near the accuracy of Backstab. Longbow requires an actual setup to get decent accuracy with, and still does not do that kind of damage. Backstab requires almost no setup.
True, backstab is sometimes more accurate - but you can only alpha-backstab once on a target. Backstab also requires you to be in hiding - not easy/possible in all cases or against all opponents. Oh, and it also requires its own special skill.
>>I'm not trying to insult with this comment, but can we do some tests with actual players?
I've worked 16+ hour days every day this week, so probably not until this weekend. I did a moderate amount of player testing with BS. On critters it looks fine. On players *I think a better balance is currently impossible without a total defense/barrier rewrite*.
>>I can substantiate all these claims in test if necessar
No, I have no problems with your claims. But please try to test in a less slanted environment some time. Prone/Stunned is one hell of a penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if you die quicker in that situation.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
JARAGONA
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 08:28 PM CST
Kodius, please don't feel like you have to rush anything out. I am sure the vast majority of us would rather wait however long it takes (years even) for you to rewrite systems that are nicely balanced and don't make you have a heart attack. And you can keep test open all the while as you tweak things. I don't know if any of us have made you feel pressured to release everything yesterday, or if it's some other source, but a smooth product is worth waiting for.
"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade
"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade
ORBITAL303
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 09:11 PM CST
I think part of the issue with Backstab is that it feels like you get ONLY alpha strikes because the actual alpha strike eats away at all the vitality damage reduction, making the subsequent hits all feel just as bad as the first.
- Starlear -
- Starlear -
ALEPH-ONE
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 09:29 PM CST
>>Kodius, please don't feel like you have to rush anything out. I am sure the vast majority of us would rather wait however long it takes (years even) for you to rewrite systems that are nicely balanced and don't make you have a heart attack.
Agreed 100%. You are awesome and you deserve to work at a pace that's comfortable for you.
-- Player of Eyuve
Agreed 100%. You are awesome and you deserve to work at a pace that's comfortable for you.
-- Player of Eyuve
DISCOTEQ21
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 09:45 PM CST
>>Kodius, please don't feel like you have to rush anything out. I am sure the vast majority of us would rather wait however long it takes (years even) for you to rewrite systems that are nicely balanced and don't make you have a heart attack.>>
Seriously if your going to have a grabber coding text you need to go out and take a walk or something... We're all used to DR soon at this point.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Seriously if your going to have a grabber coding text you need to go out and take a walk or something... We're all used to DR soon at this point.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DR-KODIUS
Re: 3 things
01/23/2014 11:05 PM CST
We do have reasons for wanting 3.1 out sooner rather than later. It is my goal to see that ends in success :)
I took a quick look at SLS and do have some recommendations for balancing it. The Circle 180ish MM I copied with 1300ish TM had less than a 1% chance to hit you with it.
Burn was mauling people due to only using 1 defense. For the moment I have changed it so players swap over a portion of the bypassed stance points into the remaining defense. This should help for PvP (critters already have a better system in place). With this, the mage had about an 8% chance to hit you (assuming no buffs/debuffs/balance modifiers). Higher, because your stance points are penalized for evasion.
I don't like this as a long-term solution because it means players with high evasion potentially defend better against DFA. What I need to do is allow a portion of the Shield Defense or Parry Defense score to count. Not stance points.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
I took a quick look at SLS and do have some recommendations for balancing it. The Circle 180ish MM I copied with 1300ish TM had less than a 1% chance to hit you with it.
Burn was mauling people due to only using 1 defense. For the moment I have changed it so players swap over a portion of the bypassed stance points into the remaining defense. This should help for PvP (critters already have a better system in place). With this, the mage had about an 8% chance to hit you (assuming no buffs/debuffs/balance modifiers). Higher, because your stance points are penalized for evasion.
I don't like this as a long-term solution because it means players with high evasion potentially defend better against DFA. What I need to do is allow a portion of the Shield Defense or Parry Defense score to count. Not stance points.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
STILVA
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 12:54 AM CST
>Burn was mauling people due to only using 1 defense. For the moment I have changed it so players swap over a portion of the bypassed stance points into the remaining defense. This should help for PvP (critters already have a better system in place). With this, the mage had about an 8% chance to hit you (assuming no buffs/debuffs/balance modifiers). Higher, because your stance points are penalized for evasion.
>I don't like this as a long-term solution because it means players with high evasion potentially defend better against DFA. What I need to do is allow a portion of the Shield Defense or Parry Defense score to count. Not stance points.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, but in case you overlooked it...
DFA provides a huge bonus to Evasion in exchange for bypassing Parry/Shield, so it's not as simple as "contesting one defense". The spells were originally designed to be Paladin-killers, and [were...] ineffective against Survival primaries since they have so much Evasion to begin with (Paladins also lost a lot of the bonus because of hindrance, to boot). That is to say, High Evasion characters defending better against DFA was part of the original intent.
If I recall correctly, Evasion got it's potency altered a bit in combat so complete dodges weren't near as common? I would guess that's why Burn is landing as often as it is?
...I'm tired, but hope some of this was useful in some way.
>I don't like this as a long-term solution because it means players with high evasion potentially defend better against DFA. What I need to do is allow a portion of the Shield Defense or Parry Defense score to count. Not stance points.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, but in case you overlooked it...
DFA provides a huge bonus to Evasion in exchange for bypassing Parry/Shield, so it's not as simple as "contesting one defense". The spells were originally designed to be Paladin-killers, and [were...] ineffective against Survival primaries since they have so much Evasion to begin with (Paladins also lost a lot of the bonus because of hindrance, to boot). That is to say, High Evasion characters defending better against DFA was part of the original intent.
If I recall correctly, Evasion got it's potency altered a bit in combat so complete dodges weren't near as common? I would guess that's why Burn is landing as often as it is?
...I'm tired, but hope some of this was useful in some way.
SEBESTYEN64
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 08:00 AM CST
<<The spells were originally designed to be Paladin-killers
Question. Why was this deemed necessary? For CvC balance? Pallies were face-rolling spell casters?
I am being serious. Never saw that DFA was in any way balanced and if this was the theme that DFA was be a Paladin-killer, I ask why?
~~~
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Question. Why was this deemed necessary? For CvC balance? Pallies were face-rolling spell casters?
I am being serious. Never saw that DFA was in any way balanced and if this was the theme that DFA was be a Paladin-killer, I ask why?
~~~
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
MOCKERJB
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 08:44 AM CST
<<DFA provides a huge bonus to Evasion in exchange for bypassing Parry/Shield, so it's not as simple as "contesting one defense".>>
Whatever bonus there is (or was, I'm not entirely sure it's survived through the latest changes) to evasion, it falls apart at higher skill levels where the loss of the second defense entirely is vastly outweighing whatever evasion bonus there is. Kodius' fix makes sense and is warranted imo. However, Kodius, if you're balancing DFA spells to include a second defense, you should probably make sure that evasion bonus is indeed dead and buried or DFA spells will end up nerfed the other way.
Whatever bonus there is (or was, I'm not entirely sure it's survived through the latest changes) to evasion, it falls apart at higher skill levels where the loss of the second defense entirely is vastly outweighing whatever evasion bonus there is. Kodius' fix makes sense and is warranted imo. However, Kodius, if you're balancing DFA spells to include a second defense, you should probably make sure that evasion bonus is indeed dead and buried or DFA spells will end up nerfed the other way.
2DUMBARSE
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 08:59 AM CST
>Question. Why was this deemed necessary? For CvC balance? Pallies were face-rolling spell casters?
Nobody likes the good guy! Just kidding.
It's a dated construct from when evasion was always the first contested defense anyway. Since we're amidst a new DR zeitgeist of sorts, I think it's worth revisiting in concept and code.
Aside from that, any one type of ability that screams anti-one-guild just rubs me the wrong way. The only exception might be the cleric anti-evil/undead abilities and necromancers since there's always been a boldfaced, underlined, all-caps, warning for the downsides to joining the necromancer guild, and most or all of the abilities pre-date the guild.
Nobody likes the good guy! Just kidding.
It's a dated construct from when evasion was always the first contested defense anyway. Since we're amidst a new DR zeitgeist of sorts, I think it's worth revisiting in concept and code.
Aside from that, any one type of ability that screams anti-one-guild just rubs me the wrong way. The only exception might be the cleric anti-evil/undead abilities and necromancers since there's always been a boldfaced, underlined, all-caps, warning for the downsides to joining the necromancer guild, and most or all of the abilities pre-date the guild.
WOLVERINE911
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 09:12 AM CST
Also, to be fair, it was a construct of a time before arm worn shield when Paladins were the only ones defeating 80% of spells with a secondary defense, it would actually be more fair to title it a shield killer now.
2DUMBARSE
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 09:50 AM CST
I agree on the first part, but paladins are really the only guild who are guaranteed a significant difference in shield skill over evasion by virtue of skill set placement. I think every other guild has its evasion learning rate even with or higher than its shield learning rate.
Training all defense skills actively, my paladin has a ~250 rank difference between shield and evasion. That's base skill, and we're not going to have an evasion buff in 3.1, so the augmented difference is ~450 ranks. And my paladin is far from the biggest paladin in the game.
I don't mind DFA now in 3.0 because the damage was reduced to compensate for it's effectiveness. Without that damage penalty, it's scary. I'd be happy even if it contested evasion and parry instead of just evasion.
Training all defense skills actively, my paladin has a ~250 rank difference between shield and evasion. That's base skill, and we're not going to have an evasion buff in 3.1, so the augmented difference is ~450 ranks. And my paladin is far from the biggest paladin in the game.
I don't mind DFA now in 3.0 because the damage was reduced to compensate for it's effectiveness. Without that damage penalty, it's scary. I'd be happy even if it contested evasion and parry instead of just evasion.
DR-KODIUS
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 11:04 AM CST
>>DFA provides a huge bonus to Evasion in exchange for bypassing Parry/Shield
It was not bonusing evasion stance, but now it is. Still needs further adjustment.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
It was not bonusing evasion stance, but now it is. Still needs further adjustment.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
DR-KODIUS
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 11:46 AM CST
>>Why was this deemed necessary?
Because players make things up on the forums and everyone believes them :)
Defense ignoring attacks are just that. They exist for many reasons. PvP and PvE both shape development, however DFA is not specifically anti-paladin. They work more effectively if your enemy is using a shield, and work less effectively if not.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Because players make things up on the forums and everyone believes them :)
Defense ignoring attacks are just that. They exist for many reasons. PvP and PvE both shape development, however DFA is not specifically anti-paladin. They work more effectively if your enemy is using a shield, and work less effectively if not.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
STILVA
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 01:46 PM CST
>Because players make things up on the forums and everyone believes them :)
According to posts by Armifer, DFA boosts the target's actual evasion, not stance, by a ton. Quoting him - "Single-defense attacks now provide an enormous (global-cap busting) defense increase to the one active defense that stacks with all other buffs. For DFA, that means your Evasion is on overdrive."
If it's really just stance, fair enough, I'm just going by what GMs have said in the past.
...Paladins are survival tertiary and wear the most hindering armor in the game, so they would get by far the greatest hampering / least benefit by being the target of a DFA. So in that regard, yes, it's an anti-Paladin spell. If you really want, I can correct it and say it's a "anti heavy armor and/or anti survival tert" spell but Paladins are the wide majority of characters who fit that niche, so it's effectively the same thing. They even got an anti-DFA spell approved at some point (why it isn't added yet is anyone's guess), so it's already been acknowledged by some that they [are/were] the easiest target when it comes to DFA.
According to posts by Armifer, DFA boosts the target's actual evasion, not stance, by a ton. Quoting him - "Single-defense attacks now provide an enormous (global-cap busting) defense increase to the one active defense that stacks with all other buffs. For DFA, that means your Evasion is on overdrive."
If it's really just stance, fair enough, I'm just going by what GMs have said in the past.
...Paladins are survival tertiary and wear the most hindering armor in the game, so they would get by far the greatest hampering / least benefit by being the target of a DFA. So in that regard, yes, it's an anti-Paladin spell. If you really want, I can correct it and say it's a "anti heavy armor and/or anti survival tert" spell but Paladins are the wide majority of characters who fit that niche, so it's effectively the same thing. They even got an anti-DFA spell approved at some point (why it isn't added yet is anyone's guess), so it's already been acknowledged by some that they [are/were] the easiest target when it comes to DFA.
DR-KODIUS
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 02:50 PM CST
>>If it's really just stance, fair enough, I'm just going by what GMs have said in the past.
Well, that isn't what the code has or is or will be doing. Try now to throw too much blame around - the mess that is combat can very easily deceive the best of us :(
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Well, that isn't what the code has or is or will be doing. Try now to throw too much blame around - the mess that is combat can very easily deceive the best of us :(
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
2DUMBARSE
Re: 3 things
01/24/2014 03:52 PM CST
From this side of the fence, it's still the best/richest combat experience of any MUD still in existence IMO, mess notwithstanding.
I'll try hopping in test later to test DFA changes.
I'll try hopping in test later to test DFA changes.
