Something that should have been done years ago (Full Version)

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



Message

Camoflague MerC -> Something that should have been done years ago (5/15/2016 14:54:57)

Its been a long time since I've posted on this forum as I very rarely play this game these days and the once in a month time that I do log in I'm immediately disappointed with how the game is still so awfully balanced and how little the developers care, but something that has annoyed me for a long time is that no one uses any of the class orientated weapons, the Club/Axe; Twin blades and Staffs, now this isn't what actually bothers me but the what does is the reason that no one uses these weapons at all is because by not using a Sword/Scythe you are losing some stats and damage giving you a handicap which no decent player in their right mind would do.

The 'reasoning' for this is that by giving up stats and damage your getting access to some class weapon only skills, I cannot even begin to explain how flawed this reasoning is no sane MMORPG developer would have a system which 'in order to have access to a third of the skills your class gives you will need to handicap yourself against other players' the main attraction of this game is skill and I guess now core diversity, no one touches the ability's that are weapon restricted because no one wants to be at a disadvantage which is perfectly reasonable, and because of this a third of the skills of most classes never get used and the build diversity is dead, its ironic because the most build diversity I've ever seen in this game was when enhancements where a thing and we all know how that went, people actually used there class weapons and there were many different viable builds these days there are only one or two for each class, this could change simply by removing all weapon restrictions and making Swords/Scythes the exact same statistically as the class weapons which they should have been from the very start.

The developers have never cared for this game but I'm going to start a petition anyway, so if you agree with me please say so below and maybe a developer might see this.



Amethystlock -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/15/2016 19:49:36)

lost in a world of words... you definitely feel strongly about something I hadn't noticed. I got my battle blood-hawk staff (estelle-style) and I'm good. so if I changed to a different type of weapon, it'd change more than my ability to use some skills? I agree to giving people more freedom to use the kinds of weapons they want without losing skills(and stats?). i love tech mages, and i love wrist blades too, so this is some trouble.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/15/2016 19:56:41)

I mean, the only reason you saw people running, for example, massacre builds, was because massacre was a good skill back then and now it isn't. Same with mages and plasma bolt/supercharge/similar builds.

So the obvious and easy solution is to make the skills better so that it's worth giving up the extra stats swords give to have access to those skills.



Amethystlock -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/15/2016 20:20:51)

ahh, when people first get massacre/super charge/ surgical strike to max. they don't go down easily. after some time leveling up without getting 30 extra damage, it slowly doesn't give the deadly vibes, but i suppose it's good because once the skills balance out, your chances of surviving a higher-level are some-parts better.
for using weapons you like for any skills you like - i realize the animation of a massacre in its current state, if tried with a staff or mace - wouldn't do. (JUST CHANGE THE STAFF ANIMATION TO ESTELLE'S S-CRAFTS I'D RLLY LOVE IT)(do whatever). For super charges and surgical strikes, it doesn't matter which weapon is being held for the animation, 'cause tech mages are human batteries, we can turn the super charge tech up on a big spoon, we can turn the tech up on anything. mercs got their connections in surgical strike, weapon-type animations don't impact much.



The berserker killer -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 0:01:11)

I really don't know why they won't just remove the whole "class weapons have less stats" thing. Lol that's ruining their game but oh well, their game.



Camoflague MerC -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 3:38:21)

This change would be but a part of a whole towards making the game more enjoyable and diverse, most of the skills need heavy balancing as you say Exploding Penguin but the whole concept of handicapping yourself to have access to certain weapon specific skills (which you should have access to regardless) especially in a turn based 'strategy' game like this is so flawed as to be utterly ridiculous and most definitely a source of discontent among serious players. No one wants to be at a disadvantage, and yet there are many skills that many players (such as myself) would like to incorporate into their builds but cannot due to the weapon restrictions. So do you see what this situation creates? It makes the player feel like they are locked into one stale set of skills while forced to wield only the sword or be handicapped in battle, the fact that such a design flaw has not been identified and removed after 6(7?) years of this game being out is very worrying to the serious player, after all how can the development team properly balance the game if they cant even seemingly understand the basic balance elements such a game requires. The only real difficulty I can see for implementing this much needed change would be to create new animations for the weapon restricted skills for swords, but that isn't terribly difficult.
@Amethystlock
This statement is a bit confusing. "freedom to use the kinds of weapons they want without losing skills(and stats?). i love tech mages, and i love wrist blades too, so this is some trouble."

I'm not sure if you mean that you think I'm saying that all weapons should be able to be used by all classes, if so then let me clarify that is not what I mean at all, I'm saying that the class given weapon whether it be wrist blades for bounty or staff for techmage should not be statistically inferior to the sword, which all classes have access to. And neither should having to use the sword to be competitive force you into having significantly less build diversity by restricting skills.

**Please Note: Your posts have been merged. And double-posting is considered spam, so try not repeat it again! ~Kokujoe_AK



Altador987 -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 10:19:48)

? I've honestly never understood the use of swords i understand it's plus 10 on primary damage and a few extra stat points but the cost is way worse IMO, frankly poison is a great tool for both hunters, atom smash is ridiculously overlooked for its effectiveness, and i love plasma bolt, (bm does struggle in its use for a staff i'll admit). I have to agree with Exploding Penguin and say this is more a balance of skills issue rather than swords and other weapons



Camoflague MerC -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 16:25:26)

You misunderstand what I'm saying, I agree that the majority of skills are woefully unbalanced and need a complete overhaul but that's not the point I'm making. You can't achieve any kind of harmony or balance In a PVP game if your only two weapon choices both penalize you heavily, If you use a sword you have a statistical advantage over anyone who isn't using a sword, you say that having extra ability's (which you should not be penalized against using in the first place because why would you intentionally reduce diversity and creativity in a game whos main appeal revolves around this? Sounds crazy right, less diversity and creativity = less fun and less interest in the game) to use compensates for this but it doesn't, the vast majority of high level players (I'm not counting lower level players because you can't balance a PVP game around the lowest tier of play) use swords because the statistical advantage over anyone who doesn't will earn them the victory more likely than not, having the 'extra ability' 'advantage' is the weaker choice because the skills needed to win the majority of encounters are not restricted. Also, some people just prefer using Wrist Blades/Staffs/Clubs because they like them more aesthetically, is it fair to prevent them from being able to equip the weapon they want to equip because they have to use a sword to be on even footing with other players? No it isn't. All weapons should be made the same statistically in a turn based strategy PVP game such as this otherwise game appeal and balance will always be skewed.



Altador987 -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 16:54:08)

the idea it would seem is simply to give choice, for those who want more direct stats, a sword is the option. for those who want more variety, the class weapon is available. Also don't assume i was referring to low lvl players i've got different lvls across the board and play actively so i'm aware of the usage for both high and low lvls, and also the game was meant for everyone's enjoyment considering how a game works based only at the top is silly, the players have to GET there first so it'd be very disadvantageous to only consider top lvl/rank. Not to mention based on my own battles alone (i never use swords for any class) that statement doesn't necessarily hold true. Furthermore even if the statement held true i couldn't say due to the lack of balance in actual classes versus somethng as minute as the primary weapons. The point i'm stating is that the point you're basing your argument on is really a microcosm of a much larger situation.

Or let's look at it this way, say they DO implement your idea... then what? what is gained? with 200 players on as an average currently putting the primary weapons on par with each other isn't really gonna bring anyone back and certainly not going to keep them once the initial moment of excitement has left.



Camoflague MerC -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 18:21:14)

"the idea it would seem is simply to give choice, for those who want more direct stats, a sword is the option. for those who want more variety, the class weapon is available."

The vast majority of players use swords because you don't need any of the abilitys gained from a class weapon to beat someone using those same ability's gained from a class weapon when you have a stat advantage over them because you are using a sword and they a class weapon this kind of disparity should never exist in a competitive game.

Or more simply:
Choice 1: Use a sword and not be at a disadvantage and thus win more battles.
Choice 2: Don't use a sword and be at a disadvantage and thus lose more battles.
Conclusion: If you don't want to lose there is no choice.

Also as I said before some people just prefer using Wrist Blades/Staffs/Clubs because they like them more aesthetically, is it fair to prevent them from being able to equip the weapon they want to equip because they have to use a sword to be on even footing with other players?

"Also don't assume i was referring to low lvl players i've got different lvls across the board and play actively so i'm aware of the usage for both high and low lvls and also the game was meant for everyone's enjoyment considering how a game works based only at the top is silly, the players have to GET there first so it'd be very disadvantageous to only consider top lvl/rank."

I am very confused because you didn't mention anything to do with lower levels at all in your previous post why would you think I'm referring to something you didn't say anything about? I made a point that this is a competitive turn based PVP strategy game with different tiers (in this case levels) and balancing the game around anything below the highest tier of play where all players (should) be equal (but there not because the game is horribly balanced but that's not the point) is the main priority.

Theoretically if the highest echelon of a game is balanced then all other tiers should be too right? Well because of RNG, the first turn dilemma, 2v2, Juggernaut having to play against lower and higher levels with better or worse equipment/skill cores (particularly at lower levels) and the fact that these skill cores and the class ability's are not balanced well, not to mention the fact that at lower levels you will be skilling some ability's faster than others because of the level variancy which can give a really large advantage over a lower leveled opponent and visa versa. Also the fact that you could buy credits and varium at level 1 and max out all your weapon upgrades and cores immediately giving you a massive advantage against most players who will be F2P (this obviously isn't a worry at higher levels). As you can see there are many more variables to account for at the lower levels which make it virtually impossible to balance well whereas at the highest tier of play there are much less variables to consider as players should all be the same level, have the same amount of skill cores, fully upgraded weapons, armour etc. The highest tier of play should always take priority when balancing as it is the most competitive and the least amount of mistakes can be made to succeed, not to mention the majority of the player base are level 40. Can't you see that getting rid of this ridiculous variable that only has negative effects on game balance and player choice improves balance and diversity (and also pleases some people aesthetically)?

"Not to mention based on my own battles alone (i never use swords for any class) that statement doesn't necessarily hold true. Furthermore even if the statement held true i couldn't say due to the lack of balance in actual classes versus somethng as minute as the primary weapons. The point i'm stating is that the point you're basing your argument on is really a microcosm of a much larger situation."

Your entitled to your opinion even if its not backed up by any facts.

"Or let's look at it this way, say they DO implement your idea... then what? what is gained? with 200 players on as an average currently putting the primary weapons on par with each other isn't really gonna bring anyone back and certainly not going to keep them once the initial moment of excitement has left."

Lets look at it this way, if the game was perfectly balanced at this very moment the game would still not suddenly take off again, because its potential for growth died sometime ago with the lack of foresight and intelligence by the developers when they choose to focus on making money not making a good game. But what would be gained is that for the players who still do play this game it would be much more enjoyable and people would spend more on it.



Altador987 -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 19:36:03)

"Or more simply:
Choice 1: Use a sword and not be at a disadvantage and thus win more battles.
Choice 2: Don't use a sword and be at a disadvantage and thus lose more battles.
Conclusion: If you don't want to lose there is no choice."

I literally just said in my earlier statement that in my own previous experience I do quite fine with the class specific weapons if you wish to counter with "this is merely your opinion" that's fine i guess but then that's your choice to be obstinate and i suppose discussing an a different perspective is a waste of my time as you therefore have no intention of actually addressing it with any real consideration. I'm certain i'm not the only one playing who has this same viewpoint otherwise everyone would be using swords because most players in this game play to win through any means necessary which is obvious in the neverending build copying epidemic.

"I am very confused because you didn't mention anything to do with lower levels at all in your previous post why would you think I'm referring to something you didn't say anything about?"

Correct, my original statement indeed had nothing to do with lower levels my statement was a response to: "(I'm not counting lower level players because you can't balance a PVP game around the lowest tier of play)" Which of course i was never getting at but you clearly stated it and therefore it meant something of value to you otherwise why state it at all?

"Theoretically if the highest echelon of a game is balanced then all other tiers should be too right?"

You frankly should've stopped at this point, i never said balance was the only problem nor did i even hint to that being my point that would be an assumption made on your part. There are certainly other bugs and issues that need to be addressed, but in my opinion those things will be MUCH easier to solve once the classes themselves are resolved. Simply put, you cannot refurbish a house built on a shaky foundation and hope to live in it very long no matter how ice it looks. It's nice and dandy (i suppose) if you want to make them equal for the aesthetic i completely understand and frankly am unbothered to changing it or keeping it the way it is (though i'd argue the choice ot choose adds a little diversity).

To continue, and i suppose this is an "agree to disagree" factor, no i do not believe the top level should take top priority they're already at the top frankly it shouldn't be all that hard to keep them appeased. My opinion is the lower levels have to like the game enough to actually GET to the top. But once again that's simply something we can agree to disagree on.

"Lets look at it this way, if the game was perfectly balanced at this very moment the game would still not suddenly take off again, because its potential for growth died sometime ago with the lack of foresight and intelligence by the developers when they choose to focus on making money not making a good game. But what would be gained is that for the players who still do play this game it would be much more enjoyable and people would spend more on it."

This is a contradiction... if the potential for growth died some time ago as you've stated then there would be no need for you posting this thread at all. It's also based on opinion and you're of course entitled to your opinion i wasn't even arguing that it's wrong persay, i was simply agreeing with Exploding in the fact that i believe there are biggers problems that play a factor into the specific subject you've decided to focus on

"Your entitled to your opinion even if its not backed up by any facts."

Your original thread is an opinion in itself without any backup, especially seeing as in your original statement you're not quite that active which brings the credibility of your statement into further question, as your opinion will therefore not have very much data to pull from



Camoflague MerC -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/16/2016 21:09:43)

"I literally just said in my earlier statement that in my own previous experience I do quite fine with the class specific weapons if you wish to counter with "this is merely your opinion" that's fine i guess but then that's your choice to be obstinate"

This is your opinion because you can't produce any evidence to support it, maybe you should look up the definition of opinion if your unsure. Calling me obstinate doesn't help your case.


"and i suppose discussing an a different perspective is a waste of my time as you therefore have no intention of actually addressing it with any real consideration."

Yes it is most definitely a waste of your precious time if you don't back anything you say up with facts and solid reasoning, then I and others can take what you say into consideration. Also defending class weapons against the clear superiority of swords is not the point of this thread.


"I'm certain i'm not the only one playing who has this same viewpoint otherwise everyone would be using swords because most players in this game play to win through any means necessary which is obvious in the neverending build copying epidemic."

Most players play to win because that is the objective of the game and that is why everyone copys the most successful build, that is also why the vast majority of players use swords because they are superior to class weapons.


"Correct, my original statement indeed had nothing to do with lower levels my statement was a response to: "(I'm not counting lower level players because you can't balance a PVP game around the lowest tier of play)" Which of course i was never getting at but you clearly stated it and therefore it meant something of value to you otherwise why state it at all?"

You didn't say anything about lower levels in your first post, so how on earth can you say I'm implying you were referring to something that you didn't even say? Haha. Yes it meant something of value to me because it is part of my argument which I have clearly wasted my time explaining to you, otherwise why else would I say something that had no value to me?


"You frankly should've stopped at this point, i never said balance was the only problem nor did i even hint to that being my point that would be an assumption made on your part."

I can't assume something you never implied. I was clearly explaining some relating points of my reasoning to you. And telling me that I 'frankly should've stopped at this point' is pretty poor form.


"There are certainly other bugs and issues that need to be addressed, but in my opinion those things will be MUCH easier to solve once the classes themselves are resolved."

Yes there are many bugs and issues that need to be addressed. Yes I agree class skills need to be rebalanced, starting with making all weapons equal so you can have access to all of your skills if you want to use a class weapon.


"Simply put, you cannot refurbish a house built on a shaky foundation and hope to live in it very long no matter how ice it looks. It's nice and dandy (i suppose) if you want to make them equal for the aesthetic i completely understand and frankly am unbothered to changing it or keeping it the way it is (though i'd argue the choice ot choose adds a little diversity)."

A nice analogy but it has no relevance to this argument, at least you understood my point that some people prefer using Wrist Blades/Staffs/Clubs because they like the look of those weapons better, and that it isn't fair to stop them from being able to equip the weapon they want to because using a sword is superior to using a class weapon if they also want to play the game for the objective, to win.


"To continue, and i suppose this is an "agree to disagree" factor, no i do not believe the top level should take top priority they're already at the top frankly it shouldn't be all that hard to keep them appeased. My opinion is the lower levels have to like the game enough to actually GET to the top. But once again that's simply something we can agree to disagree on."

I would love to hear your argument as to why the top level of a competitive PVP game should not be the first priority when it comes to balance. I also clearly outlined why the lower levels of the game struggle alot in my previous post, clearly you didn't pick up on my implication. And yes like any game when you start out as a new player the game either appeals to you or it doesn't, and I'm sure if the developers cared enough about this game it would be very well balanced and appealing with many different fun and customizable features, but seeing as they don't and that being the only way for this to change at all, although its mostly too late at this stage then no one should be at all surprised why there is a max or 200 people online at any one time these days when there used to be 10x that.


"This is a contradiction... if the potential for growth died some time ago as you've stated then there would be no need for you posting this thread at all. It's also based on opinion and you're of course entitled to your opinion i wasn't even arguing that it's wrong persay, i was simply agreeing with Exploding in the fact that i believe there are biggers problems that play a factor into the specific subject you've decided to focus on"

I shouldn't need to be explaining how wrong this statement is, the fact that anyone even posts in this forum at all contradicts you completely by your logic no one should be playing this game at all because the potential for growth died some time ago right? Obviously I like this game and that's why I'm posting ways to improve it even thought the developers clearly don't care about the game at all or I wouldn't have to post anything.


"Your original thread is an opinion in itself without any backup, especially seeing as in your original statement you're not quite that active which brings the credibility of your statement into further question, as your opinion will therefore not have very much data to pull from"

Clearly you think this is some kind of attack on you and your being defensive, I don't know if you've noticed but I have many facts that anyone can verify for themselves supporting my statements, whereas most of yours are purely opinionated. I don't play alot of this game no, but I have very clearly stated my argument augmented with strong reasoning and facts, and your saying that after all of this just because I don't play the same amount as other players that immediately brings the credibility of my argument 'into question'? That is completely illogical and convoluted reasoning.




Altador987 -> RE: Something that should have been done years ago (5/17/2016 12:19:49)

You haven't presented facts in any of your arguments, there's no data whatsoever other than the obvious being: There's a tradeoff of skills to stats when comparing swords vs class specific weapons. I won't bother addressing the rest though i read it, I understand you may or may not be frustrated with the game, i understand you disagree with my point of view, i expressed my point of view just as you did yours, most of which was opinion, whether you wish to accept that or not. I've no reason to be defensive because let's be honest the devs aren't taking most suggestions seriously nowadays as their focus is on another project entirely, I also don't have a need to be defensive because as I've stated before i'm not %100 opposed to the idea, i'm not even opposed to it at all. I'm simply opposed to implementing it at this current time as the outcome would, in my opinion, only be minor at best.

My argument (point of view really) as for the top lvl discussion is that I have a lvl 40, 37, 32, 28, and 26. I play each regularly and i understand the different problems that are current for each lvl bracket. I'm aware, or rather learned, that trying to start off early as a bm is probably the worst decision possible as the skill/stat requirements leave it way too open (unless of course you're using some robot focus which i shy away from for originality purposes.) I'm aware of the frustrations of trying to lvl from 36-39 for a cyber hunter. (ridiculous amounts). None of this is to toot my own horn however as stubborn as i am and as much as i play this game even I've gotten frustrated to the point of giving the game small breaks for awhile. So i'm certain others who aren't nearly as loyal or stubborn will probably give up much earlier...meaning they won't bother to get to rank 40. Not to mention the obvious hatred of ranks in the top tier.

But once again looking at your responses you either misunderstood my point of view or were so focused on trying to prove yourself correct you didn't care to understand it and simply took small pieces of it and argue those points, which of course is fine i suppose but doesn't really keep the discussion moving forward, so for now I'll simply leave it at: Unsupported.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.109375