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

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



Message

rej -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 21:47:30)

quote:

Thing is DA is a FIXED amount of power, whereas SA is...Luck-based.

Also Massacre isn't OP at all when you compare it with other skills, it can't do anything special, or defense ignore, or improves with anything.
Basically, if we going to get new ultimates, now would be pretty good.


*Cough* strength and base damage of primary *cough.*



Goony -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 21:52:10)

@zman, I see heal loop written all over that ;)

@below, I think it's time for lunch and to look at other options that don't include having an energy drain skill on CH, static charge could be buffed instead of having another energy regain skill as I take since the skill your proposing would not be blockable due to the removal of strike damage!



Mr. Black OP -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 21:56:30)

^
Just revised it for lower energy regain and longer cool down.
What do you think now?
Actually it would be blockable. I thought it was implied since it used your main weapon.



ND Mallet -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 21:59:00)

@zman You have to remember that unless it replaces SC, CHs will have two energy regains with it.



Mr. Black OP -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 22:02:22)

^
Well the reason for it is because SC favors strength builds so this will give an alternative to CH who do not use strength builds. It is also less appealing to strength CH because it does no damage.
TM has 2 energy regains also, Assimilate and Reroute. TLM can regain both energy and health.

How about just an atom smasher move for CH? Since everyone seems to be against the idea.



ND Mallet -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 22:07:39)

@zman Not every type of build needs to have the same ability to use the skills effectively. If that were the case, they wouldn't have stats to improve them with.



Stabilis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/9/2012 23:11:40)

@Goony,

-from my post regarding rage-

quote:

I read your changes to how rage works and one thing that stood out was that you are basically doubling the time it takes to gain rage... The increase would be counter productive to offset tanks as currently it takes 4-5 turns to rage vs what you are proposing by making it take 10 turns to get rage...


Hmm, well if Goony believes that the calculations of my suggestion are out of range (making rage occur much later on) then I better perform some simulations and make appropriate changes.



Simulation 1: Bounty Hunter (34) vs Tactical Mercenary (34)

PlayerI: 22-27 +5 -1 Defense / 19-23 +5 -1 Resistance / 60 Support / Total Rage Meter = 315 points ~ Bounty Hunter

PlayerII: 20-24 +11 +9 +1 Defense / 40-48 +1 Resistance / 45 Support / Total Rage Meter = 315 points ~ Tactical Mercenary


Turn 1: PlayerI gains (20 + 11 + 9 + 1 + 40 + 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 15, Strikes... (current rage meter: 97 of 315)

Turn 2: PlayerII gains (22 + 5 - 1 + 19 + 5 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 11, Sidearm... (current rage meter: 60 of 315)

Turn 3: PlayerI gains (20 + 11 + 9 + 1 + 40 + 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 15, Strikes... (current rage meter: 194 of 315)

Turn 4: PlayerII gains (22 + 5 - 1 + 19 + 5 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 11, Auxiliary... (current rage meter: 120 of 315)

Turn 5: PlayerI gains (20 + 11 + 9 + 1 + 40 + 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 15, Strikes... (current rage meter: 291 of 315)

Turn 6: PlayerII gains (22 + 5 - 1 + 19 + 5 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 11, Field Medic... (current rage meter: 180 of 315)

Turn 7: PlayerI gains (20 + 11 + 9 + 1 + 40 + 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 15, RAGE Sidearm... (current rage meter: MAX) → PlayerI's 4th turn

Turn 8: PlayerII gains (22 + 5 - 1 + 19 + 5 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 11, Sidearm... (current rage meter: 240 of 315)

(PlayerII would have rage on their 6th turn)



Simulation 2: Tech Mage (30) vs Tactical Mercenary (34)

PlayerI: 20-24 +9 -4 Defense / 30-36 Resistance / 50 Support / Total Rage Meter = 295 points ~ Tech Mage

PlayerII: 18-22 +11 -1 Defense / 23-28 +9 -1 Resistance / 125 Support / Total Rage Meter = 315 points ~ Tactical Mercenary


Turn 1: PlayerI gains (18 + 11 - 1 + 23 + 9 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 13, Malfunction... (current rage meter: 72 of 295)

Turn 2: PlayerII gains (20 + 9 - 4 + 30) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 31, Auxiliary... (current rage meter: 86 of 315)

Turn 3: PlayerI gains (18 + 11 - 1 + 23 + 9 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 13, Malfunction... (current rage meter: 144 of 295)

Turn 4: PlayerII gains (20 + 9 - 4 + 30) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 31, Auxiliary... (current rage meter: 172 of 315)

Turn 5: PlayerI gains (18 + 11 - 1 + 23 + 9 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 13, Malfunction... (current rage meter: 216 of 295)

Turn 6: PlayerII gains (20 + 9 - 4 + 30) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 31, Auxiliary... (current rage meter: 258 of 315)

Turn 7: PlayerI gains (18 + 11 - 1 + 23 + 9 - 1) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 13, Malfunction... (current rage meter: 288 of 295)

Turn 8: PlayerII gains (20 + 9 - 4 + 30) rage, gains a Support bonus to rage of 31, Auxiliary... (current rage meter: MAX) → PlayerII's 4th turn

(PlayerI would have rage on their 5th turn)



Goony, from what I can tell, using the given information from the given suggestion, players would in fact get rage as often as they would right now if the average amount of time to rage is 4-5 turns. I would make another simulation using player levels 10-15 but I should be able to expect similar results.



Goony -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 1:20:29)

Oh, I see now! You are calculating rage on both defence and resistance regardless of of the type of damage inflicted or even if you attack or not... That sounds bad for someone who say casts defence matrix and then gets hit with a plasma bolt. The defence matrix will contribute to an increase in rage and yet the opponent avoided it by using an energy attack... Or are buffs like that ignored from your calculation.

There is no variable at all in your calculation method and the BH in example 1 will get rage every 5th turn regardless of damage inflicted or even if they just skip turns with no regard at all to the actual damage done! Hmmm... wouldn't that favor high HP builds that have agility and low def/res, they could just heal and use boosters and all the while be building rage. It would certainly change the dynamics of how the game is played, but I think that the change would be too radical, firstly the huge change to coding and secondly for the community to understand!



ND Mallet -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 1:31:48)

@goony Not to mention it also removes strategy. Sometimes players attack the higher defense in order to rage faster with a powerful attack of the opposite damage. You'll notice Void's ideas usually are ridiculously complex to solve problems that have a much easier solution to them rather than scrap an entire chunk of code and rework an entire system.



Xendran -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 2:23:39)

Wow this thread is just going wild.



Zeoth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 3:31:36)

^
So is this game but that's beside the point.



Calogero -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 4:23:19)

how about for CH's putting EMP at the place of Energy grenade?



Arevero -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 8:05:42)

Tanking needs a few disadvantages, if people can hardly deal dmg to you, then you need a nerf, ruins not only fun, but all means of strategy, and the name EPICduel. Dealing 3-8dmg every turn and 20 or 27 on rage is boring.

I mostly NPC now due to tanking builds, and CHs are the ones abusing it, things that contribute to that is Plasma Armor, EMP, and all-long heal loops.




ScarletReaper -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 8:46:53)

tacmercs are better tanks than cyberhunters. Only difference is atomsmasher is blockable.



Oba -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 9:23:24)

quote:

Tanking needs a few disadvantages, if people can hardly deal dmg to you, then you need a nerf, ruins not only fun, but all means of strategy, and the name EPICduel. Dealing 3-8dmg every turn and 20 or 27 on rage is boring.


And how much fun is it when a BloodMage takes 30 dmg each round? You call that strategy?

quote:

Nothing is wrong with adrenaline, it's just the way Str BMs abuse the new rage system which gives a better bonus to attacking while the defender gets much less. Encouraging offensive, I would prefer fighting slow slow turtles ALL day over freakin str spammers.


Well. If STR abusers get faster rage then me who is using a skill thats supposed to give ME a faster rage, then I'd say something is wrong with adrenaline. Its purpose is to give faster rage. Obviously not every battle but the majority of them. It dosent do that now.



JariTheMighty -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 10:03:01)

^Well, the skill isn't supposed to make you rage faster than your opponent, just making you rage faster than you normally would.



Oba -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 11:17:13)

^ True dat *whistle* [:D]



Arcanis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 11:20:21)

Maybe,but it still seems something is wrong with the whole concept of rage when the player A that beats the crap out of player B gets freaky sooner that the one getting content of the can of whoop-ass.
Being defensive doesn't get you angry,it gets you killed.



Stabilis -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 11:53:15)

quote:

Oh, I see now! You are calculating rage on both defence and resistance regardless of of the type of damage inflicted or even if you attack or not... That sounds bad for someone who say casts defence matrix and then gets hit with a plasma bolt. The defence matrix will contribute to an increase in rage and yet the opponent avoided it by using an energy attack... Or are buffs like that ignored from your calculation.


After some time doing more scientific methods (basically pondering), I came to some conclusions that answer some of your doubts. For 1, I decided that passive armours would no longer contribute to rage, because it is more or less impossible to see passive armour classes without having a maxed out passive armour. So, having a passive armour would put the player in a disadvantage. For 2, I decided that agility would no longer contribute to rage, as health can be further exploited to give that player an advantage. For instance, having a -1 or -2 to Def/Res influences the enemy's rage directly. For 3, I would not count skills in the calculations of rage. Like you said, one stat type could be intercepted like Defense Matrix on Defense, adding to rage but not affecting energy, creating a severe hole. Therefore, I will change how rage is gained to only calculate base Def/Res, which is determined by base Dexterity and base Technology. Not influenced by passive armours, armours, or agility. They are independent. Therefore this new change will be specific to tanking builds. And only tanking builds. And because it does not calculate attacks and damage done (except for the "3 bonus").

quote:

There is no variable at all in your calculation method and the BH in example 1 will get rage every 5th turn regardless of damage inflicted or even if they just skip turns with no regard at all to the actual damage done! Hmmm... wouldn't that favor high HP builds that have agility and low def/res, they could just heal and use boosters and all the while be building rage. It would certainly change the dynamics of how the game is played, but I think that the change would be too radical, firstly the huge change to coding and secondly for the community to understand!


Variables you say? Does the variable for the increase in rage (Defenses + Resistances) count? I like variables too but if I begin to make it more complex with advanced functions would that... not make it more confusing? :P

About how rage is accumulated, I chose to have it drained through the amount of Def/Res instead of attacking because of one very prominent reason. The current rage promotes abusing damage since the main form of accumulating rage is attacking. Benefitting factors are frequency to attack, the power of the attack, health, and lowness of the Def/Res of the player. The key difference between our rage and my rage is that there are no stimuli to hit hard just to achieve rage. Any player can handle a tank with my rage without being inclined to be purely offensive, permitting more mixed and defensive builds that are not disadvantaged by not having as much rage gain as an offensive build! In the end, diversity fluxes, it wins. After my next edit, the rage suggestion will no longer benefit agility influenced builds and armour/protection. Instead, just base Defense and Resistance to specifically, handle tank builds.

I am unaware as to what amount of code os used in rage's functions, attributes, and classes, and fields... but! Since this suggestion is more of an edit rather than a replacement (like renovations to a founded tower), that would decrease the time to implement the suggestion by nearly half or more opposed to creating rage for the first time. :p

If it helps I can offer my services to the community if it really is complicated to explain.

Thanks for the constructive feedback Goony!



ScarletReaper -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 12:45:27)

True about the rage but then again, kinda seems rediculous to me that people with less than half my dex can block me back to back to back, and then deflect, followed by 2 crits. This Really happened to me. Got spanked by a f2p character 4 levels below me. What DOES work properly around here? lmao



Psycho Slayer -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 12:49:08)

I agree , Getting Blocked by people half your Dexterity is outrages .
Happens to me all the time .



Ranloth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 12:55:28)

People, Dex does NOT guarantee you will always block with higher Dex and they won't block at all. If they block more than you, blame it on luck instead but not here as luck complaints aren't allowed, perhaps suggestions to fix it can be done instead.
It all balances out in the end, you either block more or block less, that's average. Have a run of 100 rounds in battle and see how many times you get blocked, how many times you block them, and vice versa and find out the average. We all suffer from these blocks, even I have now about 96 Dex and had 122 before, I block about same amount as with 122 which maybe isn't fair but it averages out. Remember, the difference between your Dex and enemy's Dex is all that matters, so don't expect with difference of 20-30 Dex to block much more because difference will be small.



ScarletReaper -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 12:58:12)

I realize that, but still seems ludicrous to get that many blocks crits and deflects in a row. I get blocked usually about twice per battle and crit'd at least once or twice.



Ranloth -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 13:01:53)

Deflects? I feel stupid now for supporting deflections going to Tech without giving Support a worthy enough buff. Now I'd take deflection back anytime to Support, this would stop all these deflects. And blocking is everyone's issue, it averages out but we may have either lucky streaks with it or unlucky; I had once 3 in a row and that gave me a win against CH, but other time on my Merc, I had Atom blocked three times and EMP'd so couldn't heal either. :s



ScarletReaper -> RE: =ED= Balance Discussion VIII (5/10/2012 13:04:23)

I'm still waiting for support to get a good buff. I miss my support build. :p



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.109375