CH4OT1C! -> RE: Balancing Warrior and Mage (2/24/2019 17:00:07)
|
quote:
I Overlord I said: Like you said, the effect will be more prevalent. Historically, you were able to make up for the "lost" cast by doing an autoattack or two with a damage-boosting misc. equipped. Doing so (meanwhile making sure you stay at or above enough MP for the remaining cast) will be much more difficult in the future, however. Thus, it might just be more practical to go warrior and not have to stress about conserving MP. Consistency is preferable, especially as that one cast also carries the danger of missing and leaving you in the lurch. Neither of us can really provide an answer to this question. All we can do is speculate around the tradeoff at play here. You're essentially saying that the 1 spellcast will prove too risky for players. I, on the other hand, am saying that they will take the risk. If consistency were the only force at work here, players would already go warrior because they're more consistent than mages 4 spells (you know, because they deal less damage on the other turns). The risk will increase, but we don't know how many people will take it. quote:
I Overlord I said: Yeah. Meta doesn't necessitate balance (oftentimes, it connotes the exact opposite, seeing as people like feeling "powerful"), but what it does do is act like a marker for what is or is not effective. When even most FD builds generally don't favor blocking, however, that in and of itself is rather telling. And apparently blocking will become even weaker, so... All things considered, I do believe that DEX should remain offensive so as to retain a sense of consistency. INT and STR are naturally offensive as is CHA (the "new" main stat), so it only makes sense that DEX (supposedly a main stat or to-be main stat) should be the same. Especially as even LUK, the support stat, is offensive at heart. Instead of giving DEX a generic "nuke" or whatever, we have to find something that thematically fits. Such as a small innate chance to passively activate Celerity. Alternately, think: Tidus, from FFX. His "Haste" (obviously rooted in his notable Speed stat) ability allowed him to hit multiple times per turn. It's been years since I've played so I can't remember whether or not it carried a turn cost (for 2-3 turns of said status), but that could also be applied as a consequence of a direct in-built ability for people with > 0 DEX. Your DEX would naturally be rolled against the mob's to make sure you're not abusing it by "investing" 5 whole points into DEX. i) It's worth mentioning that DEX was always designed to be defensive. Putting aside whether it succeeds in doing so, the role of DEX was always meant to be defensive. That's why it provides blocking, dodge rate and why Kaelin wants to make it defensive. I'm not saying that can't change, only that it would divert from the original intention. ii) In order to deal with DEX, we have to separate "balance" from "meta". The latter can be used as an indicator for an effective tactic (it's literally abbreviated from the most effective tactic available), but that doesn't mean it's the only one available. There are others. Prime examples can be found with anyone using FD beast builds. This is why making DEX defensive makes sense. Offensive stats are important, that's why we have STR, INT etc. However, we need a fine balance between the two. If we don't offer a defensive alternative we set up defensive builds to have a harder time from the get-go. That's why have a defensive mainstat makes sense - they can benefit from it. Defensive builds are not meta. This mainstat will go against the grain of the meta. However, such a stat should exist for those builds. That applies even if it's not the most effective tactic available, iii) Building on this, blocking is an integral defensive part of this game. We have max mrm armours (Void vanquisher) and other items (Logos etc.). The problem surrounding them has always been monsters are made more accurate with balance. This update offers the opportunity to change that. Mages/Warriors will have blocking severely reduced where it will remain intact for rangers. Blocking is going to be very different post update (even with "nerfs") as compared to before. I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as "not good enough" based on evidence before the switch. quote:
I Overlord I said: i) applies because of the "free" points you received from not putting points into DEX like any other build, yet maintaining the same accuracy. Admittedly, this is not as much of a big deal now that every build (that isn't ranger) will have the same freedom when DEX is effectively neutered, but it was pretty cheap at the time. I've already covered why DEX's defensive capabilities are largely negligible and rendering its offensive capabilities moot just makes hybrids outright superior to pure builds. You know, since they don't have to "waste" points on DEX. Except this isn't true. You aren't maintaining the same accuracy. You're transferring the damage and accuracy requirements from DEX and onto INT. You now must use INT to gain the same benefit. This has it's own advantage, don't get me wrong. You can use spells where you couldn't with DEX. You can use mp-costing items. However, you also sacrifice the benefits of using DEX - the dodge chance. It's give and take. It's not like 200 stat points materialise out of thin air, they just get transferred. As for why... quote:
I Overlord I said: That being said, why is it that "regular" items that do the same are punished while this is not? Namely, weapons and spells that utilize CHA instead of INT. The damage and BtH in this case aren't pulled out of air either; rather, they are being transferred from CHA (now recognized as a main stat in its own right). Does that make sense to you? ... is the case. Firstly, remember that class armours break all the rules for standard items (10 skills). One of those skills (which should be worth 5% MC) is to have this switch. Technically, the fact it's in skill form (paid for by the armour's mastercraft, if you could call it that), is to have this option. Being honest, going into it any deeper would be jumping down a rabbit hole. We'd be there for a long time. quote:
I Overlord I said: OK, sure, I see what you're saying. Currently, the baseline with no STR is 20%. What is being proposed: buffing it up to 75% (+ Initiative) in exchange for nerfing DEX's role on accuracy (and presumably blocking). So far, so good. Not quite: Warrior: 75% Melee +25% extra per turn. Average, 100% melee. Mage: 75% Melee +200% melee every 5 turns (spells). Average, 100% melee. Ranger: 75% melee + blocking and initiative. In this model, the blocking and initiative would allow you to survive longer (because you take less damage). If you take less damage, you deal more. Overall, you'd average out at 100% melee (in a larger number of turns). quote:
I Overlord I said: The next part is where you lose me, though. If you're going to run STR + DEX anyway, who in their right mind would use spears or bows over melee weapons? After magic weapons, melee weapons have the best effects by far. In select cases, they're even better. FD users? Perhaps. Bows with the corresponding STR levels will outperform wands, but that alone can't offset the sheer versatility that mages have, given their expansive arsenal. Thus, any mage running DEX will never rely on bows (or spears, seeing as their weapons are superior) either. This leaves us with one very niche group of players who would actually enjoy running something like 250 DEX/250 LUK/250 END or 250 DEX/250 LUK/250 CHA so as to annoy their enemies to death. Whether turning the simplest of fights into a battle of attrition is worth 25% melee, you tell me. Unless you're a glutton for punishment, I would think not. Ergo, the "ranger" build would be even deader in the water than it already is. No es bueno. Question 1: Who uses spear/bow over melee weapons? Answer: A ranger does. That's like asking why would you use a melee weapon when you can just go mage and nuke something. It's a stylistic choice. In this model, DEX is becoming a mainstat. You don't have to run STR. Anyone running STR and DEX would be a new form of hybrid. In those circumstances, clearly melee weapons are better. That's why STR + DEX should equal 100% melee, to put melee and ranged weapons on equal footing if players have max in both stats. Question 2: Why use it given the options available? Answer: Item diversification is something the staff will have to work on in addition to the stat changes. That's a given. There are no quick fixes to the balancing system here. Even if we get the balance fixes, the job won't be done. We need to diversify the options for other builds. Then, and only then, will those builds stand a chance at competing.
|
|
|
|