balance Update 2011 Stage 1 - Summary

[Vroek]

GCD is no more of a concern for mages than invocation+GCD is a concern for warriors.

In fact GCD is far more disturbing for warriors,
unlike mages and archers, they dont enjoy the full benefits from the system apart from a few spells the rest are still locked into their attack cycle, yet they have their GCD that exceed the regular invocation with all weapon speeds except very slow.

[Torcida]

I think we kinda are at a dead end Everyone seems to have a different opinion atleast its very hard to tell.. Ngd just create a poll we went from one to another discussion.

[Torcida]

Originally Posted by HidraA

that have many vote will win.

Yeah Its called democracy....

[53453467734534]

@Seher

Excessive treehugging, yeah... That's one of the few dynamics you could actually lose with shorter CCs. I'm not sure if I'd miss it.

That´s mostly because BoW is faster to cast than everything a warlock has to offer. More range is OK (35 would be OK) , faster casting speed is way too much. NGDs idea to remove the damage of BoW will make Warlocks (and to a lesser extent Marksmen/Hunter too dependent on DI.

There's not much difference after all: Long CCs mean you'll have to play better than your enemy when you're outnumbered, and it's the same with short CCs. The only difference is that one long CC is enough to turn the battle, while you'd need e.g. 4 short ones. But what's the reason for your well planted CC? Is it luck, or skill? When it's skill you've got the same chance to hit 4 as to hit 1, meaning you've got the same chances being the underdog with both long and short CCs. Just when it's luck you'll hit far more often one CC than those 4 short ones, and you won't win as often as you did with long CCs. But luck is there on both sides, it allows the underdogs to fight on par, but it also allows the stronger side to be even stronger.

Effectively you are admitting, that it would be much more difficult to create a strong momentum. 4 successive efficient actions (in the absence of effective enemy CCs) will be far more difficult (will require more skill) to create than only 1, even if you have more skill. And time is playing against the smaller team (less health points overall).

And if we further assume that all realms have equally skilled players (statistically probable, because of large numbers, unless certain realm/race designs attract pro players), but not the equal number of players, some luck isn´t the worst thing ever to help smaller realms to win some battles.

[Excursion: Up to a certain point (not limitless of course) the involvement of luck creates unpredictability whereupon you have to react (you said it yourself)]

is just wrong. Short CCs can create just the same momentum, it just needs to be pulled off based on skill, not on luck.

No, 1 short CC will create weak waves (momentums), 1 long CC will create strong tides (momentums). You cannot turn the tables (or generate real opportunities) with 1 short CC. You will need more, and you have to hope, that your enemies don´t use their numerical advantage in the meantime.

Besides Initiative is a strong factor at the beginning, and Initiative and surprise often helps smaller (and therefore mostly better organized) armies. This is happening quite often in RO.
Short CCs = weaker Initiative and less surprise "bonus".

That's the risk of any change, no reason not to change anything. Even if such a problem went live, you could still make a hotfix :P (Like one to remove those damn saves... Meh.)

Indeed (see my sig and my suggestions), but i think it is better to evolve things, than change everything radically. Players wanting revolutions will probably start to play other games, no matter what you do. You have to appeal to your steady customers.

That's more of a problem, still... Way more customers get scared off by crappy balance, at least long-term wise.

But trying to balance things by changing everything (creating more/other content or altering gameplay mechanics) is not easier. This will probably create more balance problems.

But 6 seconds casting time for doors? Wtf? That's definitely too much. :P

I meant knockdown times: (3; 3,5 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6) seconds.

[Seher]

Originally Posted by 53453467734534

That´s mostly because BoW is faster to cast than everything a warlock has to offer. More range is OK (35 would be OK) , faster casting speed is way too much.

I don't get this. Why should low casting times cause tree hugging? Of course, if the warlock manages to chain CCs before the marksman manages to, there is no need for tree hugging, but once the marksman managed to cast BoW the warlocks will hug trees, even if it took the marksman 3 seconds to cast BoW.

Originally Posted by 53453467734534

Effectively you are admitting, that it would be much more difficult to create a strong momentum. 4 successive efficient actions (in the absence of effective enemy CCs) will be far more difficult (will require more skill) to create than only 1, even if you have more skill. And time is playing against the smaller team (less health points overall).

Not quite accurate. Okay, it IS more difficult then to create the SAME momentum as with long CCs, but don't forget the enemy: The enemy's able to create just the same strong or weaker momentum. Strong momentums consist mainly of luck as just one CC can turn the fight then and it happens more often that you have luck once than twice, while the weaker ones are actually skill related, you've got no problem to hit 4 CCs instead of one if it's actually skill that makes you hit, not luck. Longer CCs just spread the outcome more, meaning sometimes smaller groups of players can actually win fights they could've never won with short CCs, yeah, but don't forget the enemies who will win just as often as yet anyway! Sometimes they lose due to long CCs, but sometimes they win even easier due to them. Sometimes? Most of the time!
Time is not just playing against the smaller team because they've got less health points, but as well because they've got less CCs. Long CCs just bring more luck into the fight, nothing else. Shorter CCs make the game more 'hardcore' as skill counts more then: It's easy to hit one CC against progamers by luck, but it won't happen very often if you have to hit 4 of them. Those playing better will just land their hits and CCs most of the time as they don't need to rely on luck, they can still hit four times in a row.

Originally Posted by 53453467734534

And if we further assume that all realms have equally skilled players (statistically probable, because of large numbers, unless certain realm/race designs attract pro players), but not the equal number of players, some luck isn´t the worst thing ever to help smaller realms to win some battles.

True. But as I said, luck doesn't just help the underdog, sadly. How much luck is good? I don't know, but I think there are better tools to bring luck into fort wars than area CCs. Any area brings luck, and damage is less frustrating than CCs. I might be a bit wrong here though, it's possible that area damage isn't able to bring enough luck into fights.

Alsius attracts pros, for sure :P

Originally Posted by 53453467734534

[Excursion: Up to a certain point (not limitless of course) the involvement of luck creates unpredictability whereupon you have to react (you said it yourself)]

Of course! That's why area CCs have to stay, but even 2 second knock downs would cause a nice unpredictability, as there's not just one player but 10 or 20 of them, all trying to cast their CCs.

Originally Posted by 53453467734534

Besides Initiative is a strong factor at the beginning, and Initiative and surprise often helps smaller (and therefore mostly better organized) armies. This is happening quite often in RO.
Short CCs = weaker Initiative and less surprise "bonus".

Exactly. And this initiative can make 1 barbarian kill 4 enemies while not being able to kill anyone in most other situations. A surprise bonus is nice, for sure, but we've got too much of it.

Originally Posted by 53453467734534

But trying to balance things by changing everything (creating more/other content or altering gameplay mechanics) is not easier. This will probably create more balance problems.

Not just probably, most likely! I've already mentioned that in my list, radical changes break everything and you've got more problems afterwards. But those problems aren't conceptual and hence easier to fix.

[Kopstoot]

it would be fair to increase the range of some offensive spells for lock. but that should be the only change for lock though.

Lock is a skill based class(not gear based). You need the skill to be a great lock. increasing the range will only make it easier to do great. and If that doest help, PLease ask horus their great locks like pitours/jinfarr How to play.


-Make confuse a hunter spell
-I agree with changing the knocks for barbs

[Quincebo]

Originally Posted by Falco-Rukia

it would be fair to increase the range of some offensive spells for lock. but that should be the only change for lock though.

Lock is a skill based class(not gear based). You need the skill to be a great lock. increasing the range will only make it easier to do great. and If that doest help, PLease ask horus their great locks like pitours/jinfarr How to play.


-Make confuse a hunter spell
-I agree with changing the knocks for barbs

Lol every class is an skill based class imo.
But good equips makes it more handy to be skilled, i dont think you want to play without an very good cs staff and gloves..don't ya?