From the discussion in the CMan folder it looks like Paladins can get significantly better block than warriors can at maximal training.
How about adding a fourth rank to block mastery, so that warriors have the option of getting almost as good a block as paladins can?
The usual cost escalation with rank would make it horribly expensive in terms of CMan points and hence opportunity cost in other CMans, but I don't see why warriors that are maximally trained for it shouldn't be similar in block percentage to paladins.
RATHBONER
ISMANO
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 03:50 PM CST
7% is not significant.
-farmer
*
-farmer
*
| That's just what we want, criss-crossing furrows all over the town streets from someone wandering through with their animated plow super buddy. |
| -Strath |
EJKATZ
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 04:05 PM CST
I don't think that adding a fourth absurdly expensive rank to Block Mastery is the solution to the warrior/paladin balance issues. Not by a long, long shot.
What we need to be talking about are things like 3x weapon skills, 3x CMAN and/or cost revision, and a review of Shield Use as a whole.
*Mohrgan grins cheerfully*
What we need to be talking about are things like 3x weapon skills, 3x CMAN and/or cost revision, and a review of Shield Use as a whole.
*Mohrgan grins cheerfully*
ARCHIGEEK
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 04:45 PM CST
I came around to the 3x CMAN camp a couple of years ago. That would provide some AS balance, at a huge cost that most warriors would have to forego until well past cap, or make huge sacrifices elsewhere. It's consistent with where other profession changes have been going as the game evolves too, in that it gives the non-semi classes some element of the advantage that semi's have post-cap. When they get to the post-cap level, semi's become multi-class instead of semi-class, as they are able to fill out the skills on either side of their given semi equation. The central nature of semi-classes is that a sacrifice is required (see the cost of their TPs) to maintain their ability to use physical weapons and spells. Up to the point where they reach the cap, there's a reasonable semblance of balance as a result. After the cap, they fill in their weaknesses that they had to deal with in exchange for being able to perform well with both spells and physically.
By giving non-semi classes additional things to train in, we bring back some of the balance at the post-cap level... and produce a giant hole to pour TPs into. Yay?
Kerl
By giving non-semi classes additional things to train in, we bring back some of the balance at the post-cap level... and produce a giant hole to pour TPs into. Yay?
Kerl
RATHBONER
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 05:34 PM CST
>By giving non-semi classes additional things to train in, we bring back some of the balance at the post-cap level... and produce a giant hole to pour TPs into. Yay?
Yes. Squares should be able to triple more of the skills that semis get to double. Plus add some more skills to spend those CM points on, like extra ranks of block mastery and shield specialisations.
Yes. Squares should be able to triple more of the skills that semis get to double. Plus add some more skills to spend those CM points on, like extra ranks of block mastery and shield specialisations.
GS4-FINROS
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 11:12 PM CST
I really don't anticipate that we'll play with mangler costs and/or rank caps anytime in the near future, for any profession. In almost all cases, it would create more problems than it potentially solves. We're certainly open to discussion on ways to boost aspects of combat related to CM (or any other skill), but moving to a 3x rank cap really isn't feasible.
I also don't anticipate adding a fourth rank to block mastery, but we're certainly interested in ideas on how to improve shields in general. For all the training points thrown into them, shields do seem somewhat lackluster, don't they?
I also don't anticipate adding a fourth rank to block mastery, but we're certainly interested in ideas on how to improve shields in general. For all the training points thrown into them, shields do seem somewhat lackluster, don't they?
EJKATZ
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 11:32 PM CST
\\I also don't anticipate adding a fourth rank to block mastery, but we're certainly interested in ideas on how to improve shields in general. For all the training points thrown into them, shields do seem somewhat lackluster, don't they? \\
The mere fact of your acknowledgment of our dilemma, multiplied by its timeliness, means more to me than you shall ever know.
In the way of suggestions, I think taking a look at way DS bonus from shield use is calculated would be a good start. Also, you could consider looking in to the DS aspect of dodging as it relates to shields...maybe keep the shield's penalty for outright EVADE, but loosen up (or get rid of) the penalty to Dodge generated DS. There are a number of good ideas being tossed around in the afore mentioned Hunting and Combat, Combat Manuevers discussion threat, also.
Particularly, I imagine that looking to the Dodge penalties for way of increasing the DS bang for shields would be a good way to avoid overpowering Shield Use by Pures, who are likely to have less dodging do to the expense.
*Mohrgan grins cheerfully*
The mere fact of your acknowledgment of our dilemma, multiplied by its timeliness, means more to me than you shall ever know.
In the way of suggestions, I think taking a look at way DS bonus from shield use is calculated would be a good start. Also, you could consider looking in to the DS aspect of dodging as it relates to shields...maybe keep the shield's penalty for outright EVADE, but loosen up (or get rid of) the penalty to Dodge generated DS. There are a number of good ideas being tossed around in the afore mentioned Hunting and Combat, Combat Manuevers discussion threat, also.
Particularly, I imagine that looking to the Dodge penalties for way of increasing the DS bang for shields would be a good way to avoid overpowering Shield Use by Pures, who are likely to have less dodging do to the expense.
*Mohrgan grins cheerfully*
EJKATZ
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 11:48 PM CST
\\I really don't anticipate that we'll play with mangler costs and/or rank caps anytime in the near future, for any profession. In almost all cases, it would create more problems than it potentially solves. We're certainly open to discussion on ways to boost aspects of combat related to CM (or any other skill), but moving to a 3x rank cap really isn't feasible.\\
As far as this goes, I think a lot of warriors would love to be able to have more variety in their toolbox of CMANs. Conceptually, it makes sense. If warriors are the pinnacle of physical combat, why should we have to chose between slamming something with our head and shoulder checking it? If raising the training caps is out of the question (I shed a tear, here) then perhaps the CMAN point costs should be reconsidered.
Theoretically, we could come up with all sorts of ways to increase CMAN variety: Plug more of them into the Guild for example, replace some of the less popular WTRICKS with some CMANs (a la feint)...but I have a feeling this would be a lot more difficult to implement than revision of the CMAN point cost.
Another idea is to consider review of costs based on classification of CMANs...for example, passive CMANs like BMASTERY, TOUGHNESS, etc that provide permanent benefits would maintain something like the costs that they have now, whereas active ones that burn stamina get way cheaper. That way we could have a ton of neat tricks (and some of the specific manuever defense that goes with them) at a low price while still limiting the number of "permanent" benefit type CMANs that we can get.
*Mohrgan grins cheerfully*
As far as this goes, I think a lot of warriors would love to be able to have more variety in their toolbox of CMANs. Conceptually, it makes sense. If warriors are the pinnacle of physical combat, why should we have to chose between slamming something with our head and shoulder checking it? If raising the training caps is out of the question (I shed a tear, here) then perhaps the CMAN point costs should be reconsidered.
Theoretically, we could come up with all sorts of ways to increase CMAN variety: Plug more of them into the Guild for example, replace some of the less popular WTRICKS with some CMANs (a la feint)...but I have a feeling this would be a lot more difficult to implement than revision of the CMAN point cost.
Another idea is to consider review of costs based on classification of CMANs...for example, passive CMANs like BMASTERY, TOUGHNESS, etc that provide permanent benefits would maintain something like the costs that they have now, whereas active ones that burn stamina get way cheaper. That way we could have a ton of neat tricks (and some of the specific manuever defense that goes with them) at a low price while still limiting the number of "permanent" benefit type CMANs that we can get.
*Mohrgan grins cheerfully*
EJKATZ
Re: Block mastery
02/09/2011 11:54 PM CST
\\Conceptually, it makes sense. If warriors are the pinnacle of physical combat, why should we have to chose between slamming something with our head and shoulder checking it?\\
\\Particularly, I imagine that looking to the Dodge penalties for way of increasing the DS bang for shields would be a good way to avoid overpowering Shield Use by Pures, who are likely to have less dodging do to the expense.\\
Great typos, there. See, this is why I'm a medical student: because in my previous twenty+ years of education, I still haven't learned about homophones (fingers crossed that I'll learn them by the time I finish my residency!)
*Mohrgan's inner grammarian*
\\Particularly, I imagine that looking to the Dodge penalties for way of increasing the DS bang for shields would be a good way to avoid overpowering Shield Use by Pures, who are likely to have less dodging do to the expense.\\
Great typos, there. See, this is why I'm a medical student: because in my previous twenty+ years of education, I still haven't learned about homophones (fingers crossed that I'll learn them by the time I finish my residency!)
*Mohrgan's inner grammarian*
