Should shadow arts get replaced? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance



Message

Exploding Penguin -> Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 20:35:32)

I spent some time thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that ED is mostly about strategy, otherwise it wouldn't be PvP. NOT about luck, which shadow arts is full of. While there is always a small amount of luck necessary in any RPG-like game, an entire passive skill devoted to it seems like too much. The skill itself promotes luck instead of strategy, and I really don't find this quite fitting for how battles should be played. Support, on the other hand, influences many things other than luck-based decisions, such as aux damage and skill effects on intimidate, malf, etc... Therefore, I'm bringing up a topic of whether or not Shadow arts should be replaced with another passive just as effective, but with different principles to support strategy more than luck. What do you guys think?



Stabilis -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 20:56:28)

I think passive skills should be moved from the skill trees anyhow.



legion of souls -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 21:02:59)

Well, Epicduel is about srategy. but it is your choice whether you want to play strategicly of just test your luck. No matter how hard we try, some elements of the game will be determined by luck. If you think things that are determined by luck should be removed, why dont we just remove the support stat altogether?
Yeah, i don't think me or you would like that very much.



Vypie -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 21:04:30)

It could bring more strategy into one's build making, but a passive effect, during a battle, would add no real strategy either.
I think the problem lies with the "luck" system itself
Blocks are too powerful when they happen, And many times they decide the outcome of the match. And when they dont happen, well, you have just wasted 10 skill points in something that didnt bring anything to the battle.

Blocks should happen more often, but should be less powerful. When you block a Huge hammer or Plasma sword, it's a bit silly to mitigate all damage. You take the hit with your arms/weapon... you should still suffer some damage.
But then deflection would work too similarly... any thoughts on this?



drinde -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 21:08:24)

Well, there could be two factors that affect blocks.

Dexterity would affect the chance of you blocking.

Support would determine the % of damage reduced.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 21:25:34)

I'm not saying luck at all should totally be removed, I'm just saying shadow arts is an outrageously large extension of it into gameplay. Critical hits, blocks, and deflections are all understandable, but an entire skill devoted to a single aspect of luck (in this case, blocks) shouldn't exist, IMO.



goldslayer1 -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 21:28:44)

IMO, passives should be automatic MUST haves.
anyone without a passive in their build is dead meat.

for this reason IMO, passives should already be maxed and out of the skill tree.


i however agree, luck passives are a bit bleh.



D.v.D. -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 22:32:52)

Balance is that way >>



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 22:58:53)

@goldslayer: huh, surprisingly enough, I never thought of auto-passives for classes! That's a really interesting concept. Anyways, if it were like that, some classes would by base be overpowered. After using tiers to rank passives the best I could through turn-by-turn data and predictions, the best passive for defensive reasons is obviously blood lust. Then passive armors, then shadow arts, because of its supp requirement. I can't exactly rank reroute, but I'm going to use opinion of average 110 HP with level 7 reroute, which is about 30 energy from a passive skill. Just enough to heal with a strong, level 7 heal. Factoring in the fact that reroute loses some of its effects if the user doesn't go first, I've rated reroute as somewhat a less effective passive compared to blood lust. Passive armors (especially mineral/plasma) may seem far better than blood lust, but are totally ignored by rage. Deadly aim overall is the best offensive passive, compared to its only other offensive passive counterpart, adrenaline. Having auto passives would definitely make BM OP from the baseline. Here's my ranking ideas on passives (their overall effectiveness may vary depending on class and other passives):
1. Blood lust
2. Hybrid Armor
3. Deadly Aim
4. mineral/plasma armor
5. shadow arts
6. adrenaline



Mother1 -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 23:04:33)

In all honestly even if you removed shadow arts luck would still be in the game.

In order to remove it you would have to remove blocks, crits, deflections, stuns, and every chance based item in the game (meaning all items that influence chance with the exception of the icy chill weapons and the chairman's fury items).

However if you did this the game wouldn't be fun in the least, since many builds would get nerfed or destroyed if you remove luck.

Dex builds would get nerfed since they work with blocks which works with chance.
Tech builds would get a nerf since they work with deflections
Focus builds would fail since they work with crits, blocks, and deflections
Support builds would be nerfed the hardest since they work with crits

In fact the only build that wouldn't be nerfed is strength builds since their purpose is pure offense. In fact strength builds would be getting a massive buff if chance is removed. Since Blocks, crits, stuns, and deflections are the things that hinder them and they would be gone. It would be play as a strength build or die and that wouldn't be fun at all since all other builds would fall to strength builds.



Vypie -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/4/2012 23:38:27)

Luck should not leave the game, just balanced with more occurring chance and less power. This would prevent Peaks of luck or vice versa.

And while that is true, Mother1, keep in mind that they wouldn't just remove the luck factor without adjusting every single stat. The game would have to be rebalanced so those stats don't fall behind.
A scenario where they take luck away from the game without tweaking everything else will never exist.

Anyways, if they did, the game would become so dull... It would be basically Attack power VS defense points. They would have to come up with new, interesting effects to keep battles from being the same.





legion of souls -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 0:06:36)

quote:

In all honestly even if you removed shadow arts luck would still be in the game.

In order to remove it you would have to remove blocks, crits, deflections, stuns, and every chance based item in the game (meaning all items that influence chance with the exception of the icy chill weapons and the chairman's fury items).

However if you did this the game wouldn't be fun in the least, since many builds would get nerfed or destroyed if you remove luck.

Dex builds would get nerfed since they work with blocks which works with chance.
Tech builds would get a nerf since they work with deflections
Focus builds would fail since they work with crits, blocks, and deflections
Support builds would be nerfed the hardest since they work with crits

In fact the only build that wouldn't be nerfed is strength builds since their purpose is pure offense. In fact strength builds would be getting a massive buff if chance is removed. Since Blocks, crits, stuns, and deflections are the things that hinder them and they would be gone. It would be play as a strength build or die and that wouldn't be fun at all since all other builds would fall to strength builds.



This is kinda what i meant.


And mother just nailed it right there.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 0:22:02)

I'm surprised by the fact that I've stated my point multiple times and people have still failed to realize it. The topic is about shadow arts individually. I already said that luck is important, but it shouldn't be accentuated so much that there's an entire passive skill for it. Strength BH is also somewhat luck-based as smoke + shadow arts is a great way to guard against bludgeon, robots, and atom smasher. As of now, the support stat, deflections, and blocks all are great ways to implement luck into the game, but nothing more should be added, particularly a passive skill which greatly increases a single luck-based aspect of battle.



legion of souls -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 0:27:45)

If this thread is about shadow arts individually, and it was actually removed in-game. You wouldn't see too many BH's.



Mother1 -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 0:32:38)

@ OP

Then what passive would you replace it with then? Remember before you can take out a passive you need to have a replacement for it. None of the other passives are a goof fit for the class as they would Overpower or underpower the class.




unQualified -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 0:38:16)

The solution, a block should not affect all the attacks, just 1. for example, double strike. if you block 1 of the strikes the other can still hit



Mother1 -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 1:13:07)

@ unqualified

That would unbalance the game and give classes who can strike more then one an unfair advantage. Meaning BH CH (since they have cheap shot) Merc (Double strike and berzeker) and Tech merc (since they have double strike) The mage class would be at an unfair disadvantage because of this since they don't have any moves that can strike more then once. Even if BM still had berzeker TM would be at a disadvantage still.



Drianx -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 3:05:23)

No offense, but you basically suggest... nothing.

quote:

Therefore, I'm bringing up a topic of whether or not Shadow arts should be replaced with another passive just as effective, but with different principles to support strategy more than luck.


Nothing clear from here. Gotta be more specific than you have been already, otherwise no reply will meet your expectations. If you only suggest 'replace SA with ummm idk what but different' it is no good.

- How do you want BH and CH to be affected by this change - nerfed or buffed?
- Do you think SA is too strong or too weak?



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/5/2012 19:32:23)

@Drianx: Very well then, I just got a suggestion from my friend to replace SA. Hopefully my point of removing SA because its an overkill on luck-based factors got across to everyone...

How about replacing it with a passive that, instead of increasing block chance, increases your chances of not getting blocked/deflected? This passive skill would not be able to break minimum block/deflection chances, and would work like this:

1. 1% anti-block chance
2. 1% anti-block/deflection
3. 2% anti-block chance, 1% anti-deflection chance
...and so on until at max it reached 5% for both.

This way, there'd be something similar to shadow arts, but the luck is more split out between deflection AND block, so it doesn't emphasize luck factors on a single point too much, but still brings a decent amount of luck into the class itself.



Drianx -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/6/2012 3:04:54)

^
In this case, you're only replacing a chance-increasing skill (chance to block) with another chance-increasing skill (chance to hit without being blocked).

It doesn't sound bad for a passive for one of the evolved classes. But to replace SA with this I don't think it is necessary, because it basically isn't much conceptual difference between them.

As a matter of fact, this skill would be stronger for BH than SA, as a str BH will no longer need defenses for having a killer strength build - that keeps striking with little chance to be blocked. People already complained that Platinum's Pride unblockable strike is imba when used by a BH.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/6/2012 18:45:04)

@drainx: true... but my suggestion is a tad bit different from just a reversible SA. It's spread out over 2 effects rather than 1, and it can't pass block/deflection minimum. By spreading it out over 2 different luck-based aspects of fighting, its impact is far less, conversely with normal SA where you can easily get a zerker/bludgeon blocked. They also didn't initially need defenses anyways, the defense was just a varied thing between different strength builds. Having level 4-7 smoke is definitely sufficient enough to reduce your opponent's dexterity to the point that, even with low dex, you can still hit them without worrying too much about getting blocked.



devilcrusher -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/7/2012 10:42:38)

Removing Shadow Arts=No Fun...We play ED for fun and not for records xD



Vegafire -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/7/2012 19:30:52)

Shadow Arts is utterly useless, Sidearm, Aux and Robot Specials aswell asmost akills are unlbockeable, Then rage with the blockeable skills for a higher chance to hit, Have decent support due to Criticals playng a important part when facing abusing BH's and CH's.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Should shadow arts get replaced? (12/7/2012 19:55:07)

@devilcrusher: I'm going to totally ignore that statement as you have no proof, evidence, or even any points worth considering to back up your idea. Another contributing factor is that you're a hunter.

@vegafire: It's only useless when fighting against TMs, it's actually insanely useful when fighting against other characters. They can block atom smasher, a vital skill for both merc types, as well as staple offense skills for other classes such as zerker, bludgeon, normal bot attack, etc... Shadow arts can either entirely shatter a build into uselessness, especially with smoke, or it can add pretty much no help at all when fighting certain builds. This is an unbalanced factor that I'm also trying to work against when suggesting that SA gets replaced with another equally useful but different passive.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.09375