RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (Full Version)

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



Message

Nexus... -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (7/31/2013 21:54:24)

quote:

He was talking to GearzHeadz


quote:

^Oh, I thought he was trying to argue with nexus's last post. My fault.


I also thought that, thanks for the clarification haha

Prophet



xyzman -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 8:58:24)

quote:

Actually this would be really easy to deal with! Guns, or any damage with only 1 shot, could have the animation repeated for each segment, or just the piece of the animation where the sidearm fires repeated for each segment. Either way, I think all the idea needs is a little thinking outside the box, and it can be accomplished without too big of a headache (although it might take some time).

Yeah good approach. however it is also a matter of liking XD. The main reason why i choose 1-shot guns are becausei can see 1 large dam (like instead of 20-20 i can see a large number: 40 on the screen). And i think there is not only me but many people loving 1-shot gun as it feels 'stronger' than the other type of gun. So even when Resource Allocation is implemented I still love to see 1-shot gun. Anyway I do not deny that u have put forward a viable solution for animations
quote:

The first way to go about it, is to leave everything how it is aside the damage/hp. A formula would calculate the damage done based on the resistance/defense and stats you currently

Again, good solution. I just wonder if it would be a bit complicated or misleading for new players who would definitely feel a bit weird seeing weapon with, say, 10-15+36 dealing hundreds of damage.



midnight assassin -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 10:06:23)

@Nexus any ideas about first turn debuffs?



Ranloth -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 10:09:50)

We could disable them, in other words give it 1 turn warm-up. If we left the Shields alone (no warm-up) then Shields would be able to catch up slightly with debuffers - they are already stronger by a bit but debuffers give you free attack whilst Shields do not.
Either that or you can make Smoke/Malf/Intimidate an effect - you don't attack at all but apply the effect, just like Shields.*

* Debuffers should be bumped down a little anyway due to Omega nerfing HP and altering defences, so this change could be done instead and no other changes would be needed (in my opinion).



Predator9657 -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 10:17:28)

quote:

or you can make Smoke/Malf/Intimidate an effect - you don't attack at all but apply the effect, just like Shields.*

* Debuffers should be bumped down a little anyway due to Omega nerfing HP and altering defences, so this change could be done instead and no other changes would be needed (in my opinion).


That sounds good.



ED Divine Darkness -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 12:05:29)

make debuffs affect a % of their defence/resistance and not improve with anything.

so, 25% of defence/rez at max.

and make them have a focus 4 requirement at max, to stop abuse.



Mother1 -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 12:10:50)

@ Ed divine darkness

Then the hate would be on focus builds again since any build not using focus will just complain and moan saying "Why is it that only focus builds can do this and we can't! We should all be able to use these like this no matter what build we have!"




Nexus... -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 14:37:11)

quote:

Again, good solution. I just wonder if it would be a bit complicated or misleading for new players who would definitely feel a bit weird seeing weapon with, say, 10-15+36 dealing hundreds of damage.


Thats true, but I think someone who is better at math than me could figure out how to scale everything up pretty easily.

quote:

@Nexus any ideas about first turn debuffs?


I'm glad you asked about this, because its something I had not thought about in a while. Something I have noticed through playing other games, is that many times debuffs will taper. I'm not exactly talking about the same kind of debuffs, but I think "tapering" could apply very well to the current system. Pretty much, all debuffs would receive a small buff (to debuff amount and mana cost), but to counter this buff, they would become weaker over time. So lets take malfunction for example...You deal -40 tech on your first turn (100%) with the debuff applied, -30 tech on your 2nd (75%), and -20 on your 3rd (50%). Shields remain the same...this makes shields less valuable (but stronger) over time, but punishes players for not using a shield at all. So it adds an entirely different dimension to debuffs and counter-play etc. Do you shield and negate the extra damage upfront, or do you attempt to wait it out? This is an idea I have put some thought into over the years, and I like it...I think it needs a couple tweaks, but I think the general idea would work very well. Also, if an assault bot were used to minimize the affect of the debuff, the minimized version would be based on what taper level the debuff was at when it was "cleansed", and the debuff would not taper after the use of the assault bot.

Another idea would be to do what Trans suggested, and disable debuffs on the first turn so people don't jump the gun. However, if the suggestion about rage were implemented, I think the two combined might be too big a nerf to first turn.

And finally, Trans's last suggestion is very strong, although I would tweak it a little. Instead of not doing any damage, I would make it so debuffs applied only 50% damage on hit (example), or something a long those lines. Afterall, shields are stronger, and last for an extra turn.


quote:

We could disable them, in other words give it 1 turn warm-up. If we left the Shields alone (no warm-up) then Shields would be able to catch up slightly with debuffers - they are already stronger by a bit but debuffers give you free attack whilst Shields do not.
Either that or you can make Smoke/Malf/Intimidate an effect - you don't attack at all but apply the effect, just like Shields.*

* Debuffers should be bumped down a little anyway due to Omega nerfing HP and altering defences, so this change could be done instead and no other changes would be needed (in my opinion).


I like these ideas, but I hope by 'no other changes' you are speaking about debuffs, and not the entire game.


Prophet



Ranloth -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 15:38:50)

Yeah, by that I meant debuffs. We either bump them down in terms of numbers (to match Omega standards) or leave the numbers as they are and apply the status on its own. XD

Either could work but I'd worry that debuffs would need to be equal to Shields (Reflex + Technician) and possibly Def/Res Shields to be brought down by a very small amount. If we give them 1 turn warm-up, it'd just need bumping down the numbers - unless it would apply just the status.
Or Nexus' solution also works, which is lower damage when using the debuff. I'm perfectly fine with that and in fact, it's better than doing no damage and applying the effect.

Regardless, I'm fine with any solution that would at least work efficiently, instead of being a band-aid fix.



Nexus... -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/1/2013 16:11:51)

quote:

Yeah, by that I meant debuffs. We either bump them down in terms of numbers (to match Omega standards) or leave the numbers as they are and apply the status on its own. XD

Either could work but I'd worry that debuffs would need to be equal to Shields (Reflex + Technician) and possibly Def/Res Shields to be brought down by a very small amount. If we give them 1 turn warm-up, it'd just need bumping down the numbers - unless it would apply just the status.
Or Nexus' solution also works, which is lower damage when using the debuff. I'm perfectly fine with that and in fact, it's better than doing no damage and applying the effect.

Regardless, I'm fine with any solution that would at least work efficiently, instead of being a band-aid fix.


Agree 100%



Segawoman -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 11:56:32)

quote:

The player who gets the first turn advantage should not gain any rage from his/her attack


Negative, this is what Wiki has to say about the Attacker and the Defender.

quote:

As an attacker, rage is gained at a rate of 110% of damage blocked (by the opponents defense/resistance) + 1% per 4 support you have over the defender, up to a maximum rate of 125%. If at a support disadvantage, the minimum rate is 95%.
As a defender, rage is gained at a rate of 25% of the damage taken, +0.25% per 4 support you have over the attacker, up to a maximum rate of 29%. If at a support disadvantage, the minimum rate is 21%



Predator9657 -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 12:15:54)

^ You quoted the wiki, but this doesn't justify your opposition.



Segawoman -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 12:19:16)

quote:

You quoted the wiki, but this doesn't justify your opposition


Yes it does.

Nexus is trying to say that the attacker should not gain Rage from the First Strike to even Rage out but this will turn things alternatively when being the first one to Strike is a bad idea (except for Energy burning skills of course).

Sig removed. Please use it once per page. ~Mecha



Predator9657 -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 12:30:28)

quote:

to even Rage out


Nope, not to even Rage out, but to even out the advantage given by the first turn



Segawoman -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 12:33:53)

quote:

Nope, not to even Rage out, but to even out the advantage given by the first turn


quote:

The player who gets the first turn advantage should not gain any rage from his/her attack


It's about the Rage, not about the advantages and disadvantages not including Rage Gain. What?
That's the main point if you understand.

That's why the dev's already reduced the Rage Meter for the Defender and increased to the Attacker's Rage Meter.


Post edited to remove unnecessary content ~M4B
Sig removed. Please use it once per page. ~Mecha



Predator9657 -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 12:39:49)

quote:

It's about the Rage, not about the advantages and disadvantages not including Rage Gain. What?


The point his suggestion is not to balance rage, but to balance the advantage given by the first turn. He proposes to do this by not giving rage to the first strike.

quote:

That's why the dev's already reduced the Rage Meter for the Defender and increased to the Attacker's Rage Meter.


quote:

The amount required to fill the Rage Meter starts at 40 points and increases by 2.5 points per level. So for example, a level 5 character's Rage Meter would require 53 points (40 base + (2.5 points x 5 levels)).


^ Nothing to do with being attacker/defender.

quote:

This suggestion has already been resolved.


If your looking from the POV that Rage needs to be balanced, you may reach that conclusion, but we are trying to balance the advantage given by being first, which has not already been resolved.



Anthemic -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 14:25:06)

quote:

suggestion affects rage, it is not being used to balance rage


Sega's right and pls calm down against people's oppositions. They are only there in a limited amount of time and by the looks of it, guy. You don't have valid arguments comparing to Sega's.

quote:

And that makes sense, because?


Predator, how does it not make sense?


Post edited to remove unnecessary content ~M4B



Melissa4Bella -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/6/2013 16:57:57)

Several posts have been deleted due to petty and immature arguments, trolling and flaming. If your post was deleted, consider this post as notification as to why. Some of you should expect PMs.

Do not repeat this behavior. If you cannot follow the =AE= Comprehensive Forum Rules then I strongly advise you to refrain from posting until such a time that you can.



Nexus... -> RE: Minor Improvements, Major Effect (8/8/2013 4:49:03)

Let me try to explain, as their seems to be some hostility and misunderstanding here when their should not be. The idea here is to reduce the advantage a player gets by getting to go first. One of the main advantages a player gets by going first, is that he/she gets to make the first tactical decision. The other advantage he/she gets, is if he/she decides to do damage to their opponent on their first turn, they gain rage based on this formula:

quote:

As an attacker, rage is gained at a rate of 110% of damage blocked (by the opponents defense/resistance) + 1% per 4 support you have over the defender, up to a maximum rate of 125%. If at a support disadvantage, the minimum rate is 95%.


The proposed idea would make it so said formula (the one you see above), would not be applied on first turn. This would mean that the player who went first, would not gain any rage from his/her attacks, which would lessen his/her head start, and limit his/her advantage solely to the tactical decision he/she decides to make...

So predator is right...This has very little to do with rage, and everything to do with first turn. The means by which we are proposing to lessen the first turn advantage however, does involve the rage mechanic...but the rage mechanic is not the focus here.

quote:

Nexus is trying to say that the attacker should not gain Rage from the First Strike to even Rage out but this will turn things alternatively when being the first one to Strike is a bad idea (except for Energy burning skills of course).


The player who goes first will still get to make the first tactical decision, deal the first strike, or select the first skill. This in and of itself is a very large advantage. Giving rage on top of this only greater expands the advantage one can get. Giving it to the person who does not go first, however, would lessen the advantage, and even out matches across the board.

I hope this helps clarify my intention.

Prophet



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.109375