This is perhaps outside the purview of this discussion, and if so, sorry -

Guild Skills by in large, to me anyway, appear to be 'time spent doing the thing the guilds gotta do'. Moonies have to stare at the sky and do stuff with fate. Bards have to play instruments and interface with music. Clerics have to interact with and devote themselves to the Gods. Rangers have to do stuff in Nature, Necromancers have to get their hands dirty with corpses. There's some wiggle room, it's not a perfect fit for all guilds, and a lot of guilds don't really have a guild skill in place that does much, but generally, as a gating mechanism to ensure you advance in your guild by 'doing the thing your guild does', I think guild skills are overall pretty cool.

Expertise is in a kind of odd limbo, somewhat similar I would say to a few others, insofar as what you do to train it makes sense ("do specific stuff with your weapons"), but it isn't really that different from what any other guild does in combat, because anyone can do CCM or analyze combos. Accordingly, I'd kind of prefer to see the system expanded to more accurately reflect a Barbarian flexing and expanding upon their combat EXPERTISE. That means doing something only Barbarians can do in combat, or interfacing with combat in a way only Barbarians can. I wouldn't even find the notion of a MEDITATE EXPERTISE, a 10s RT action that causes you to carefully examine the battlefield, gaining a bonus to damage and defense over every entity observed, to be that ridiculous. Furthermore, there are three Barbarian paths, but beyond roughly what thematic abilities appear in those paths, Barbarians aren't really only picking abilities in one, and saying "I am a Barbarian of the Horde persuasion" or such. Expertise might be a good place to allow that differentiation.

Just some thoughts.

>>wouldn't even find the notion of a MEDITATE EXPERTISE, a 10s RT action that causes you to carefully examine the battlefield, gaining a bonus to damage and defense over every entity observed, to be that ridiculous.

Not sure how such a thing "grows" with the Barbarian. A 10s RT would be unusable in PvP. Couple of issues with it there... Also, your other abilities already do this and they won't stack.



After discussing this with Raesh the complaints seems to boil down to:

1) Expertise abilities have too high an entry barrier

2) Expertise abilities do not provide enough duration for what they do

3) Missing during the combos is a problem

4) The buffs themselves are not too helpful


For the purposes of discussion, I'm going to assume the 3.0 global caps no longer exist and/or will be modified to support what we want to do.

For #1 I would allow fewer moves to be performed in any order, or periodically allow something like a 10-second analyze the battle field. A successful combo or combat analyze would give an Expertise Point. Can store up to 10 and spend them at any time (they'll slowly dissipate over 10 minutes) or all at once on abilities you select.

Worried this becomes just one more thing for players to keep track of. It would be more useful in PvP as you could store them up and spend them as you wish.



For #2 I would increase the duration of buffs to several minutes.

For #3 I would make it so missing one move does not penalize the combo and still counts. Missing all the moves still counts, but the result is half duration or something.

For #4 I'm a bit handicapped. Damage and Accuracy both work though not with sufficient potency for folks to really notice. A 50% damage buff is not usually noticeable in combat. Being able to use abilities for reduced IF cost might be easier to move down.

If we do the combo point system then we could add in actual attacks and damage dealing abilities. Using Intimidate to prevent retreating becomes much more useful if you can fire it at-will. Having a Charge-to-Melee and knock you down attack becomes killer if you can do it at will.


Regarding Charged Maneuvers the problems seem to be:

1) Insufficient damage compared to normal attacks due to charge up time

2) Charge up time makes them difficult to use in PvP

3) Expertise tie-in needs help



For #1 I may just triple the damage and see if folks find them useful

For #2 this was intentional. If they provide a damage bonus then you are encouraged to DISABLE the enemy and then one-shot them with a CHARGED MANEUVER. This should be difficult to accomplish as not all abilities can or even should be great in PvP. If someone has a cyclic disabler/knockback ability on, for example, then no melee-based move is going to get the job done.

Charged maneuvers were only the first of several - channeled and situational maneuvers being the others. This just hasn't been a project I've had time for yet.

For #3 I liked the idea of reducing the RT/cooldown for Barbarians that pass an Expertise check


Any thoughts on all of that?

---

"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

For BCMs,

#1 This is actually a pretty good idea that I didn't think of. Recommend, increasing the storage time by 20 or even 30 minutes or so, as it'll become useful in PvP (being able to actually 'prepare' for a fight).

#2 Agreed.

#3 Sounds OK, will have to see during testing.

#4 Accuracy is useless at least in PvE because it's illogical. That is, if you're able to get your BCM combo off in the first place, then why do you even need this? This may change however with the above changes. The damage aspect currently just seems underwhelming, again testing after any changes will be needed to fine tune.

For CCMs,

#1 Agreed or even more X5 or x6 (see below)

#2 Or even increase the charge times if the damage is significantly increased (see above). I really see CCMs as an 'executioner's strike'. A finishing move.

#3 Idea seems excellent, the cooldown needs to decrease in some form or another to make CCMs more then just flavoring, tieing it to a expertise check sounds cool and more realistic then just a static CD.

These harder hitting maneuvers... barb only or everyone? If everyone, I think that would hamper uniqueness and put us back to us dealing identical damage with weapons as everyone else.

"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade

Wouldn't make much sense if the hard hitting CCMs were for everyone. Also, I think if the damage for the CCMs were scaled up properly (we're talking multiple of 5 or 6 or whatever) then I think they could be of some use in PvP, they would just be very sparingly used and probably more for showy flash more then anything.

Hum, I actually have a pretty neat idea about the CCMs. Why not allow us to prematurely strike during the charge up. For instance, if I bash Squanto over the head and then try my cleave while he's stunned, I'm just not sure when he's going to snap out of it so I can type 'man cleave' again to release whatever charged up damage I have for my cleave rather then waiting for the full charge up.

So... we do more damage with charged maneuvers, great... but while they're charging up we still can't attack so we're not really gaining on the TM users are we?

Ok, so the goal is boosting Barbarian DPS to reach parity with MU Guilds. One way to do that is via Barbarian "TM". The other is by improving/expanding upon Expertise abilities. I've recently been brainstorming the latter in this thread. But, it doesn't mean any decisions have been made or that Barbarian "TM" isn't a viable approach.

Implementing Barbarian TM is much more work then improving Expertise and the existing mechanics to address our goals. It is a new system with its own mechanics. It may ultimately fail.

I wouldn't say Expertise has been a success, but there is a foundation available upon which to build. Can we justify using it as a platform to improve Barbarian DPS though? That is the question I'm struggling with. There is precedent with Thief Backstab and Ranger Snipe and whatnot. But I don't want to feel as though we are sidestepping the Tertiary penalty of the Magic skillset in doing so.

---

"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

Hmm, could also try tying the new Expertise point system into charged maneuvers as well. You can expend an Expertise point to fuel an instant Charged Maneuver or lower it's cooldown, etc. Probably would need to increase the total pool size of expertise points and increase the duration which points can be kept but I think it'll be interesting.

Let's do it!

"Brace yourselves, Squanto is going to bleh blah fart fart bleh.." -the player of the character formerly known as Pureblade

I really like the expertise idea. Barbarians should be experts in something like weapons. Expert points to energize all our cool Barbarian attacks gives us a unique niche in terms of gameplay as well. Make it so! Mr. KODIUS!

> Thanatology and Scouting are used in the too hit check for VIVI and Snipe.

I didn't know this, so I think they should be moved up in the list.

> Manipulate also directly increases damage output.

Equally good point, but I'm a little bitter towards manipulate at the moment, so I'm still not counting it. You should, but I'm not. ;)

> I'd say SCREAM CONCUSSIVE is basically useless

Completely agree, but it wasn't always. Somewhere along the lines, someone decided that a free TM wasn't fair for an already potent guild; however, when bards had a limited list of options, it was given to us solely for +dps. That's kind of the place barbarians are in now. Scream havok is only good if you would fail the shove.

>Pathways: only boost TM damage, so damage still runs through the TM skill.

Except for Barrage, which while still running through TM, is a cool TM/Weapon combo attack.

>I'm pretty sure Scream concussive runs through TM

It does not.

>They run off TM skill for damage.

Yes, but, they do so independently of TM, or indeed, anything the Necro really does.

>Predictions: skill buff, so not a direct source of damage.

+WeaponSkill is most certainly equal to +Damage.

I think you're a little turned around here - the point is that there is precedent for guild skills being used to increase damage. Wherever that damage is coming from, there is still precedent for guild skills increasing damage. Thus, Expertise being expanded to be a Barbarian only set of manuevers that overall increase Barbarian damage is a reasonable thing to ask for.

> What I mean is that pets do not require any further action by the Necro. I.e., Tamsines Commune still requires the Cleric target TM spells, but QE and CFB does not require the Necro continue to target spells. Yes, their strength is determined by the Necros TM, I was not contesting that.

If you added something like giving an expertise move that added cleave damage to your primary strike, or an occasional alpha strike, or a pulsing inner fire random crazy psycho deal weapon damage to everything in the room, boosted by expertise, then you're effectively doing the same thing. Abilities to boost your guild's primary means of doing damage, but with a reskin on the wording. I think the core is there.

You missed the second half of my post where I differentiated between guild skills being actual sources of damage vs otherwise augmenting damage. A necromancer is dependent on TM skill to get additional damage from a risen, for instance. To me, that makes risen more like a fire-and-forget TM spell that happens to not use mana. Point being, if Expertise is only trainable in at-level combat, it seems correct that it could be the primary factor in some additional SOURCE of damage. Say, for instance, a random chance to double-strike or cleave with a melee weapon where the attack's accuracy and damage are determined by Expertise skill. Or the previously-mentioned 'go crazy and jump around hitting everything in the room' ability.

If Expertise can be trained in other ways (like Summoning), then it seems more appropriate for Expertise to augment existing damage sources, whether that be increasing the damage of charged maneuvers or through Expertise-based combos.

>>The issue is ANALYZE ACCURACY requires you hit the critter in the first place.

No, no.. I addressed this in a previous post, and the comment you quoted even referenced this. My suggestion was to allow misses to still count for the combo. So you could miss 3 times and still get an accuracy buff.

---

"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

Just because it looks like a weapon strike to the player doesn't mean it has to be a weapon strike behind the screen. That's all I'm getting at. Some kind of expertise vs defenses contest that looks like a weapon strike but does fixed damage (sort of like Footman's Strike) could be one option for Barbs.

Something else that just occurred to me. Having an alpha strike is sort of a thief 'thing'. Sneak up on your foe, set an ambush to cripple it, then finish it off. Instead of trying to make Expertise combos work like Tactics combos, they could function more like WM pathways. You set a particular 'stance', and then get a stacking buff with every attack against your current target. The buff drops off over time if you don't attack, and it resets when you switch targets. Thematically, I think it makes sense. Whether your barbarian is raging 'zerker or a more tactical fighter, you're wearing your opponent down over time and getting stronger as the fight goes on. The ramp up time would have to be pretty quick for PvE, because critters just don't live that long.

>Just because it looks like a weapon strike to the player doesn't mean it has to be a weapon strike behind the screen.

I agree, but my point was more that other than Empathy-Manipulate, there is zero precedent for any guild skills themselves being damage sources. What you're describing is basically TM, using Expertise (guild skill) as the skill check, with flavor text that includes the held weapon. Which sure, I mean, that could be neat, but I don't think there's anything in the game like that. To your example of FST - that's just standard TM, whose damage (slice/impact/puncture) is decided by what's held in the Paladins hand.

>Thematically, I think it makes sense.

I also dig the idea of multiple modes of attack. Reavers can be pushing offense at the cost of defense, tacticians can be gaining some sort of CC or such, etc. Maybe the point system could be something akin to 'Shadow/Light' building that's found in a lot of games (or Elemental Charge in DR), wherein doing some sort of actions build one set of points but reduce another set of points, and further the bonus. For example, maybe ambushing builds $SneakyBarb points, while reducing Berserker points, and more $SneakyBarb points provide a buff to stealth and evasion and a debuff to heavier weapons and armors. More points in Berserker increase strength, stamina, and weapons, while debuffing stealth and evasion etc. The idea being as you do a thing related to that focus, you build points that can do things related to that focus, and you also push yourself into a 'Battle State of Mind' that is thematically and mechanically in line.

All working words/names here, just spitballing, etc, etc.

>What does it matter if we are sidestepping Magic tert for Barbarian damage boosters? We aren't MUs and none of our current supernaturals provide direct damage. Does Ranger Snipe sidestep their magic placement? Others have made the point better, so I think you know how we feel about this. My two cents, build on the existing Expertise platform. I'd rather not have Barbarian TM at all, but that's just me.

This. The only thing I want to add to this is that Backstab/Snipe/Vivi are all utilizing primary skills (Backstab, Scouting, Thanatology) to augment non-primary damage sources (Weapon, Bows, and TM), and that's fine.

>A damage booster ("Make my weapon hit harder under X circumstance.") is not the same thing as a second damage channel ("Fire off TM strikes independent of my weapons"). These are two separate beasts and need to be balanced and considered in different ways.

I understand personally, but I believe since we are Barbarians our second damage channel should indeed be tied to our being weapons primary. This is what the CCM/BCM discussion is about. We, as Barbs, use weapons up to and including our bodies. I would gladly forgo a magic-based secondary damage channel (Barb TM or berserk/roar damage) to drastically increase our weapons-based damage channel through abilities only available to our guild (or, if everyone has to have access to them, at least us having a higher bonus to damage potential - based on Expertise skill). If we can do the same amount of damage with weapons that MU can do with weapons + magic then I'd be happy.

I chose being a barb back in '96 because I like the idea of shunning magic to become the best mundane combat "monster". Right now, it's impossible to be that because we are on equal footing (generally) with MU mundane combat. Add in their magic combat as we fall far behind.

That's my third penny but I got more in my pocket if needed.

Rhadyn da Dwarb - Blood for fire!

Barbarian Guild Suggestions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h4L5hAxR1-VLDegDNZBIhGdo5bMgnCtm84Icm2E0utU/edit#gid=0

To echo what Armifer is saying since I think I might be the catalyst for the misunderstanding here...

If Barbarians need a second damage source analogous to TM, that should come from their tert skill set and would be on par with TM damage from Rangers/Paladins (And Traders/Thieves though I don't think either is a good comparison right now).

If Barbarians' primary skillset is failing to live up to expectations because the guild skill isn't filling a proper role and the perks of being primary vs secondary vs tertiary in weapons aren't large enough (And I say that fully aware that barbarians are the only weapon primary so separating those two problems is somewhat of a false distinction) that's a separate problem.

My goal was to insert awareness of the second problem into the discussion to make sure it was being considered. It seems likely that's both a lower investment in development time and more likely to end with you "Feeling like a barbarian". It also helps establish a better baseline before someone looked into if and how to implement a secondary damage stream that would come from your supernatural skill set.

-Raesh

"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things