RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel General Discussion



Message


Zeoth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 4:03:24)

I don't know. I say they just get technician back end of story




Stabilis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 7:10:02)

►Ashari Please Read and Reply!◄

Please wait up to 10 seconds when clicking the link, if the load takes too long, try again.

►Everyone Else Please Click Here!◄

~~~~~~~~~~~~

@ND,

My reply is below. [:)]

|
V




Oba -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 7:55:12)

quote:

I don't know, I'm just saying that the nerf is 40% and it's just too much IMO.

I'm fine with replacing malfunction with something else.


How can it be a "to much of a nerf" on Static? You will get 15-isch energy back instead of 22-25 (thats what I got back when I was CH). This is making it balanced, before with you 44% energy have been OVERPOWERED. With big letters. This will maybe make them even with TLM/BM. Would you rather lose your plasma armor? This is the only thing I find as possible to nerf. Plasma Armor or Static Charge.

Having a huge defence's (+12 res and a high dex build) + the possibility to heal loop as I dont know what, is as I said OP.




drinde -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 8:27:14)

Give Us A Chance Suggestion (GUAC):

How about allowing players with less stats from weaponry a higher chance to start? ._.

Save Support! Suggestion (SS!):

Make Support improve your BOT's Special Rate.

Stop Strength Suggestion (STST!):

For Damage Bursts are taken advantage of too much, make a 1 point Recoil Damage for each 5 Damage dealt. Now they'll be Tactics.

Intimidation Incentive Suggestion (IN2):

This skill should reduce 1-10% from all Strike Damage and STR % Skills, not just STR.




Ranloth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:35:20)

Guys, I want opinions about my CH idea, if possible, as I can see that CHs will be doing much better now (balance wise) but I can say they still might be a bit too strong in a way. Yes it's not out yet but I'm not saying it will, it's just a simple suggestion:

I'd like to propose taking out Malf for new, similar working, skill:
*insert cool name here for the skill* is my idea! Basically at Lvl 1, it'd take 1 Res from the enemy, at Lvl 2 it'd be 2 Res, and all the way until Lvl 10 where it can take away 10 Res. It works in same way as Malf, but is weaker. CHs already have Plasma and decent Tech, with Dex build it's quite a Tank and when they Malf - their deflection rate is high. If it was to work that way, it'd still be debuff but would not give them as much advantage as weakening skills, raising their own deflection rate whilst lowering other's. My reasoning is that they have Armor, Debuff and a kind of Energy-regen which is a bit too much. If they changed Malf to work in that way, only for CHs so exclusive skill, then they'd dominate less as deflection does play major role against Tanks.
Also at Lvl 7, my Support TM with about 97 Support, can take away 48 Tech which is equal to roughly ~12 Res and at Lvl 10 it'd be ~14 Res. CHs can do the same right now, and even at Lvl 1, with about 50 Support on my CH alt, I can take away 23 Tech already which is ~6 Res. It's a bit high considering it's just Lvl 1 and quite cheap skill and goes nice with Multi.

Forgot to add, that debuff would NOT be able to improve with any stat. Debuff would be static, no improvements at all. But there could be restriction - once Malf or new Malf is used, you cannot use the other one or same one (same UNLESS it's stronger). That way, it could work. :D
Lastly, it could still be debuffed. 80% debuff means max would end up with -2 Res which is roughly 8-10 Tech *same amount as Malf ends up*. If you went for Lvl 6-7 Malf, that'd be -1 Res only unfortunatelly but L8 of new Malf would make it -2 Res after debuff (80% of 8 is 1.6, rounded up to 2) which works just fine. Sometimes debuffing debuff might end up leaving -7 Tech which might be just -1 Res (stat progression).

Basically this would lower slightly tanking ability of CHs while being able to keep their skills as they are. Anyone has any feedback on it?




PivotalDisorder -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:39:34)

@Trans: Main issue is 2v2, what if you used that skill and then your partner malfed them? it's the main problem I had when trying to think up a new debuff.




Luna_moonraider -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:45:26)

hmm i think it is safe to make a support debuff skill and a support buff skill back since support is no longer a super tool. plus tlm can get a support debuff instead of fc and another class can get a support buff skill.




PivotalDisorder -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:48:41)

I also thought about Intimidate being buffed to effect str AND sup but at a lower rate ofc.

their used to be a support debuff called Diamond Blades I think, but I never saw it.




Ranloth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:53:35)

@Pivotal
Good point, thanks for pointing it out.
But there could be restriction - once Malf or new Malf is used, you cannot use the other one or same one (same UNLESS it's stronger). That way, it could work. :D

Forgot to add, that debuff would NOT be able to improve with any stat. Debuff would be static, no improvements at all.




King FrostLich -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:54:07)

The problem for creating a support buff skill is what type of stat does it improve. If the devs chose strength then these so called strength abusers can somehow balance their strength to a certain point enough to invest the remaining stat points to support, then they can create a purely offensive build even though it lasts 4 turns or 3. If the devs chose dexterity, cyber hunters can quickly gain up the pace for a huge defense matrix and multi or encourage them to max their dexterity wherein they can block too many times and crit too many times(also having insane tank builds). If the devs chose technology, 5 focus bot builds are more likely to pop out of nowhere and if combined well with a tactical mercenary build, creates an extremely tank + hyper support build good enough to kill a tank cyber hunter.

In short, making a support debuff skill needs to be thought about more before being implemented.




PivotalDisorder -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 11:55:49)

definitely agree with above, I never really posted any of my new buff ideas because they pose so many problems.




Ranloth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 12:06:52)

Sorry guys, I missed out one point in my idea so it's my bad here! >.<
Basically the debuff would be static, would not improve with any stat at all. So Lvl 10 would always have -10 Res and if this is applied, Malf cannot be used (even if stronger) but same skill (new Malf) could be only IF it's stronger than previous one.




Luna_moonraider -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 12:29:45)

@PivotalDisorder

it is not diamond blades. it is was called tactics.

back to topic:

new intimidate:Strike and weaken an enemy by reducing their strength and support during combat.

energy required

Level 1: 10
Level 2: 12
Level 3: 14
Level 4: 16
Level 5: 18
Level 6: 20
Level 7: 22
Level 8: 24
Level 9: 26
Level 10: 28

Weapon Required: None
Stat Required: None
Level Required: depends on where it is placed on the skill tree
Improves With: support(+1 Strength and support reduction at 22 Support; +1 Strength and support reduction per 6 Support)
Warm Up: 0
Cool Down: 2

Tactics:Increases your support or an ally's strength during combat.

Energy Required:

Level 1: 11
Level 2: 12
Level 3: 13
Level 4: 14
Level 5: 15
Level 6: 16
Level 7: 17
Level 8: 18
Level 9: 19
Level 10: 20

Weapon Required: None
Stat Required:: None
Level Required: depends on where it is placed on skill tree
Improves With:dexterity(+1 support gain at 22 dexterity; +1 support gain per 4 dexterity after)
Warm Up: 0
Cool Down: 2

chose dex because there are not many skill which improve with dex and if tactics improves with tech it be too oped because tech give the power of deflection and low deflection chance+high support= super zooka=oped




IsaiahtheMage -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 12:34:10)

If a support buff skill was implemented it would need to work like Field Medic if it improved with any stats it would become OP. It would have to gradually improve over time and scale with your level like Field Medic. Meaning by the time you reach lvl 34 the maxium buff it should give should be 45 support. While being a tier 4 skill and costing 33 energy.




Luna_moonraider -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 12:39:54)

@IsaiahtheMage

hmm might work but static gain for a stat buffer is kinda pointless anyways. support just improves zooka dmg, crit chances and anti stun. crit and anti stun are luck factors. so basically a support buff just buff zooka dmg. support is a well kinda useless stat now. since the nerf to it.




Elf Priest JZaanu -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 15:32:24)

My final thoughts on these topics that are not helping our balance problems.


Class change must have restrictions. The game will never be balanced with class demographic shifts. This feature needs to be limited. Giving players the freedom to obtain loop hole classes does not help or aid in a balanced community. There is no incentive in players staying with one class. It is all about taking advantage on an area where the game is slow to repair or adjust while players use exploitive skills/builds. This is a fact. The game must take responsibility of limiting. This has been my feeling since the introduction of class change.



My other opinion is enhancements. They are not needed or ever needed. It has bloated the game, and this problem was also noted in Beta of future issues. How can the game ever be balanced with so many tiers of players? It will never be. This is another responsibility the game must take account of. How is the balance tracker going to honestly judge two classes dueling when one varium is fully enhanced and the other is none or partial. It will give false readings. The game had so many opportunity to lessen the enhancement slots since Gamma, yet it has been idle? This feature is a financial, credit and balance drain, and how long will the game continue to sink players with a false advantage or freedom?


I spoke of passive bots, and bottom line, these are a tool and no build should be dependent on them. 80% of undermining another player's investment of defensive/offensive points/skills. Is it balanced where players who can created a build so high in a single stat point or near non pierce-able tank builds? These build-types can strong-arm the game where their opponent cannot make effective adjustments either offensive or defensive once those stat/skills have been placed? Make these passive bot skills require some type of stat or skill investment.


Lastly, weapon/armor novelty skills (Curse, Frost, Strike, Stun, Critical and others) should not dictate the game which requires investment of stats and skills. There should be a base of 1% or less for each effect. It should be a fun item and have little impact on pvp. I have seen in nearly every match these novelty skills alter the game. I find this extremely upsetting in true balance. Keep novelty as a novelty, and nothing more. If it dives into the realm of build dependence on these novelties, it will undermine in correcting balance issues


If these issues are not resolved, balance in this game will never come close. No matter what the balance team does, it will be a temporary band-aid. Epic Duel, your player base is growing, and the game needs simplify itself. These features might have been good the past, but it will constrain this game from expanding and correcting issues.

By limiting game freedoms, the game will expand in unique player choices. As of now, pvp is extremely messy and convoluted with unnecessary features that will not help this community nor will it ever help with class/demographic balance.


This will be the last time I will mention these topics since I have repeated them many times in the past, and I do not wish to become redundant. I do hope the game understands my perspective and my reasonings.




Lord Machaar -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 16:10:13)

quote:

Tactical Mercenaries:
- Mineral Armor will no longer improves by 1 defense point at level 34 (maxes out at +11, down from +12)
- Smoke Screen will be replaced by Field Commander.
Cyber Hunter:
- Plasma Armor will no longer improves by 1 resistance point at level 34.
- Static Charge will have its percent energy restored greatly reduced (progression is now 15% / 17 / 19 / 21 / 23 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29)

Smoke Screen provided too many benefits to Tactical Mercenaries, who already have energy regeneration, health regeneration, a passive armor and plenty of heavy hitting physical skills.

Static Charge provided far too much energy at higher levels due to the high weapon damage, giving an unfair advantage to 5 focus and tank builds. While strength builds will be able to have a sizable energy return, builds will little primary damage won't see half their EP bar refilled by a single Static Charge anymore.



Have you took consider of Juggernaut Battle Mode, While doing this?




Stabilis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 16:36:07)

@The ND Mallet Guy,

quote:

Going by first glance I can tell you that Plasma Aura will either be OPd or UPd.


Oh good I hope this will be a constructive criticism to help me balance my suggestion!

quote:

OPd since you said it removes 10% of total health upon primary damage. This means 10 primary strikes and someone dies.


10 successive Strikes (or in general being contacted by a Primary) will lower the enemy's health to 1. If it helps I will add the statement that Plasma Aura can not kill the attacker (since draws are not an option). So, 10 turns of straight out Primary hits. I would not consider this a dilemma because of the unlikelihood of a player not having common sense. Rabblefroth has mentioned the psychology of human beings to be adaptive (in general I would say). If you play to win (this is your scenario), I would not say that the player is foolish enough to inflict self damage over and over again. There is the option of Sidearms to avoid Plasma Aura, and supplementary skills (for example poison grenades or fireball), and the option to defend (healing or buffs). There is a great many ways to avoid Plasma Aura with respect to versatility in utility. I would not say that Plasma Aura is a deathblow to a single person besides cancelling out Primary Strength spammings. This would hopefully promote more tactile thinking.

quote:

Spam tech and dex and you have the next OPd build that is probably even worse then anything before it.


Oh! This is a great point ND! I have not been criticized in this category before (selective stat allocation). I would say that Plasma Aura would compensate the need for offence if a player only ever uses defense stats (the said dex and tec). This could be an issue in events such as incoming 3 damage per turn VS. 10 damage outgoing per turn simply due to Plasma Aura itself. I am thinking of solutions to repair this skill... hmm... how about adding this into the skill's scripting:

during the enemy's turn ->
attacknegate = player with Plasma Aura's Defense - enemy Primary damage + minimum Strength damage...
if attacknegate <= 3:
_____Plasma Aura = False


Plasma Aura will not shock anyone who's Primary will hit a 3 against the user of Plasma Aura. How does that sound?

quote:

UPd if you base it off damage inflicted since BH and BM gain health back from damage. If you adjust the numbers so Bloodlust is useless against it, every other class suffers big time.


Since I have included the coding above ^, it will not be overpowered. Yes, BH and BM gain health back on the damage inflicted. My confusion is how Plasma Aura would be underpowered if Bloodlust restores health as usual. Would you mind relaying what you meant back to me ND? Max Plasma Aura VS. a max Bloodlust Primary Strike would mean that the change in health is equal to:

lplayer health + (23 % * damage inflicted) - (total health * 10 %)

When you average things out, it would usually mean 7 Bloodlust bonus - a 10 Aura shock... = -3 health. I would not call that underpowered ahahaha! [8D]

quote:

Cyber Arts will support strength builds since they would now have higher hit rate because of it. Think of a Str Hunter with the ability to gain huge amounts of energy back in one strike, except it's actually a CH.


Cyber arts will benefit Strength builds greatly, yes. In truth, though, Cyber Arts upgrades all Cyber Hunter builds who use Static Charge. ND Mallet. This is the point in my response where I will convey my unnerved feelings toward Static Charge improving with Strength. I thought "of a Strength Cyber Hunter (the best Static Charge) with the ability to gain grand numbers of energy back in one Static Charge". One of my more vital concerns are forcing Cyber Hunters to administer Strength into their complex simply to return more energy. This is preposterous. If a Cyber Hunter would like to play a Support build, they will not get the needed energy BECAUSE Static Charge improves with Strength. Ashari told me that, "It's not supposed to be a universally useful for all builds. Static Charge is intended to be a skill that Strength builds gain more benefit from. Every skill in-game can benefit your more or less depending on your build. Static Charge is no different". That just broke my mind. Perhaps in the description there is reference to skills being unanimous to host a specific stat type... but that does not mean that THE key skill of a Cyber Hunter (Static Charge) should be the choice of backbreaking, to harm the UP Cyber Hunters as well, which has been with us since the beginning (unlike Plasma Armour) and is so very unique. Static Charge can literally substitute the need for Plasma Armour which is at an imbalance. Instead, staff has decided to nerf a skill that already favours Strength Cyber Hunters... and in return makes all players suffer! This is going to promote even MORE Strength abuse (from the Cyber Hunter class). You do not wish this do you ND? Many Cyber Hunters use Static Charge because it is the gateway to concede all other skills costing energy. Violating Static Charge in this way is an attack of the Cyber Hunters' core!

quote:

The Poison reduction isn't helping much since it's entirely situational and OPd when it comes to that situation.


Poison reduction is simply a complimentary attribute of Cyber Arts to prolong livelihood in a class that is otherwise susceptible to catastrophic damage. If you have played as a Cyber Hunter ND, you would know that poison is a prime weakness because we cannot defend against it and ALSO that the current passives (Plasma Armour = improper, Shadow Arts = fairly useless) are only promoting tankishness or Strength or health monsters. This cuts away from diversity, a VERY important aspect in PvP in general, but also originality. Does Plasma Armour or Shadow Arts looks original to you? *smiley face* with the current balance trend Cyber Hunter will become a Tactical Mercenary. This is not acceptable. If staff would only consider my opinions to fixing my own class we would not suffer as such. Anyways, back to poison. The key trait in Cyber Arts is that Primary accuracy improves. This is helpful for Static Charge since it being key and requiring accuracy, they mesh nicely. Poison resistance is simply there to help Cyber Hunters withstand the barrage of offense that some players choose to cripple others with.

quote:

Really isn't anything wrong with Cheap Shot so I don't see why it needs replaced. Secondly, it seems a bit underperforming from what I remember about the other strength moves like it.


Sorry if I did not display, my intentions were that Cheap Shot is underperforming/underpowered and needs to be edited. I chose to incorporate Blue Ruin to give an offensive tactic to those who do not use wrist-blades. ND Mallet, would you not agree that class specific attacks are somewhat pointless? The only true reason staff has decided not to make all weapon skills universal is because of the work needed to add into animation. This is the only reason. SO, allowing players to use a sword in the Cyber Hunter class actually opens up the possibility of innovation and it also removes the necessity of Massacre (and this cuts away from Strength builds). Even if Blue ruin is a Strength skill itself, we can lower the damage spamming by giving players the chance to opt for weaker attack skills.

quote:

Energy Shield should probably stay off considering it improves with Support as does Defense Matrix. Plus, combined with Plasma Aura, you'll be safe behind 3 damage while your opponent suffers a slow demise by the hands of the 10% health damage.


Perhaps we can change Defense Matrix to improve with Technology, no? Tech Mages advantage from this because of their skillset (technology spells). It will not overpower Tech Mages because the energy improving skills all require a decent value of energy (averaged at 20 energy for these skills). And like I said about only taking 3 damage and dealing 10 per Strike, my suggestion to the Plasma Aura's coding can help solve overpowered tanking.

Thanks for your time ND Mallet I appreciate it!




Shadronica -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 16:55:00)

I agree wholeheartedly with Jzaanu's post above and in fact I have recently submitted an article discussing the very same thing at a popular ED fan site.


quote:

Greetings to all on Delta V.

We have all struggled to get a balance between Exile and Legion and we have all struggled to get equality in our classes.

A lot of people, including myself, consider enhancements on guns and weapons were the downfall in achieving balance on our classes.

While I totally appreciate that the balance team including Hudelf himself now, are trying hard to make things a fair playing field ... I am not convinced though that we will make it and am deeply concerned about the dominating classes swallowing up the weaker classes left in their wake.

Along with the enhancements we started to see Lady Luck play a big part in winning battles. Mainly because we had higher stats to mess with the battle engines coding.

Personally I prefer to win a good duel which requires strategy rather than a battle won by pure luck and brute force. I loved the challenge of thinking up new builds with strategy but ... I have little incentive right now to join the hoards with their “everybody loves Rayman” build. Lol

I know that in Beta we had some OP classes but I mostly always managed to find a good serviceable build.

I do realise that there is many players who love using an easy win class or build because it makes sense to use something that is easy. But ... once all the other classes have been pulverised ... what is left? Just you and thousands upon thousands of clones just like you. Boring right?

These are my thoughts and concerns for the direction in which EpicDuel may go unless we get some divine intervention to allow the six races/classes to co-habit in some semblance of peace.




Elf Priest JZaanu -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 18:02:27)

Very Honest and well written observation Shad.

The game's features were based on providing advantage. This has caused many issues of various balance perspectives. Features that are introduced should not be an incentive for advantage anymore. With the game progressing into a multi-tier form of entertainment, having features that should provide interest for competing with our community and not competing for advantage above our community.

If the game draws firm boundaries that it doesn't cross, the players will adapt. The game must also have confidence in selling features and content beyond pvp. From Class-Change, enhancements, bots, and weapon specials, it was solely on giving the player the advantage. By doing this, the base demographics is being spoiled. Instead of finding solutions, they take the easiest road for success. Are people buying to be competitive or are they supporting the game because the enjoy and care about it. One is about status and the other is about supportive passion.

Until the game addresses and adds rules for these incentives for advantage, the game will only be self-serving for power and status.




Stabilis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 18:24:32)

That is definitely a nice overture to look at EpicDuel with, Shadronica.

I wish to further balance this game by having F2P gear as powerful as P2P gear. P2P gear will only cost varium and be "cheaper". The main differences is that F2P gear will take longer to acquire (requires time). That P2P will take obligation (requires money without time). This is a way to balance F2P to P2P.




PivotalDisorder -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 18:29:43)

in an ideal world I wouldn't be playing Epicduel at all ^^

pointless suggesting that variums and non variums should be equal. they shouldn't. but I do think the gap can get a bit closer if enhancement prices are reduced again.




Ranloth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 18:32:49)

Well, we already have P2P gear having just 2 Lvls advantage, example is Rusted and Assault Bot - 2 dmg difference only which is 2 Lvls (1 Lvl = +1 more dmg or +4 stats, etc.). What this gives us is choice between items, if I'm losing on 2 Lvls difference but item seems good enough to compete - I'm much better off with Credit item even as Varium player, but I happen to buy new items rarely so I usually go for Varium and wait until difference between items is actually bigger (I mean like 3-4 Lvls difference in each of my items).

Classes got nerfs, we'll see how they will do now and it'll be time for buffs mainly. We can somewhat tick off balance from the list, not completely but partially.
Next step is our Lady Luck - major changes to how blocking works, making base chances to 0% (not 4% or whatever), changing Crits (make them same rate as now but less powerful, rage is meant to take care of Tanks, not constant crits destroying your strategy), and perhaps change to rage (how shields affect it greatly; shield gives Str build rage faster which kills the players who go for them).
Gap can be slowly ticked off as well, we'll see more items like Assault Bot with little difference so it's a step in good direction.
And lastly we can focus on features that could enhance the gameplay; new modes, NPCs, etc - not add-ons that will act as 'balance breakers' or give you advantage over non-Varium. Yes I do want to fight and get a challenge from most of the fights, not just Varium.

@above
Or Guns and Auxes losing enhancements and prices staying same; Credit + Exp scaling will take care of the prices for Credits.




Stabilis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 18:36:46)

When we get to the point of F2P gear being very similar to P2P gear then perhaps we could take the credit requirement off of P2P gear.




PivotalDisorder -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion Thread (3/2/2012 18:42:52)

Enhancements = profit. think its time to accept they are here for good.

Revisions to all the luck based calculations are hopefully being considered, would be kinda sad if they fixed balance and luck took over completely.
I liked the idea of a block that only partially reduces the damage, like a deflection [Parry was the suggested name for it]. either it completely replaces
block or every time you block or are blocked it has a chance to be a parry instead, reducing the damage by a %.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.125