CH4OT1C!
Member
|
quote:
...What I disagree with are the roles you assigned warrior and ranger, and the framework you tried to fit them into.
Ok - Since we both broadly agree on where Mage fits into this, I'll primarily focus on the distinction between Warrior and Ranger. To briefly summarise a few of the relevant arguments I've made:
1). To solve our current set of problems, changing the function of base stats isn't enough. In many cases, stats aren't the root cause of the problem anyway. So we're going to need to support any modifications we do make with targeted changes to items, as well as the release of new ones.
2). Given current circumstances, I believe the easiest way to carve out an identity for each build is for one to specialise in Offense, one in Defense, and the third being best at adapting between the two. Each build should be able to play Offensively and Defensively, but would gain a distinct advantage in whatever they specialise in.
3). It would be extremely difficult to establish either a Warrior or Ranger identity that's rooted in Offensive specialisation. Mage burst damage gives them an innate advantage. Items could help to bridge the gap, but neither STR nor DEX (as stats) possess an innate characteristic that can compete offensively. It wouldn't be easy to give them one and, even if we did, the result would likely be a Mage clone. Besides, why would we want to? Mage is the one build we can actually nail down right now.
With these points in mind, we have two builds and two gaps to fill. One of Warrior and Ranger needs to fit into the Defensive pathway, and the other into the Adaptive one. This is where our opinions diverge. Under this framework, I want to make Ranger into the Defensive build and for Warriors to be Adaptive. Meanwhile, you prefer for the opposite. I don't think that either is necessarily wrong, but I do think my chosen method is easier. I think there are two big reasons why.
Firstly, as I mentioned, for this framework to function it's going to need item support (like the FD/FO switching armours you mentioned). It's certainly a limitation of my framework, but adding that kind of armour will be vital regardless of the build chosen to become the adaptive pathway. That also means it doesn't help us to decide which of Warrior or Ranger is the better fit. There is a logic to suggesting Ranger because of the Defensive and Offensive options currently at its disposal - some support is already there. However, I'd argue these items actually do the opposite. Ranged weapons are already divided down Defensive/Offensive lines (100-procs vs 0-procs). To make Ranger Adaptable, we would therefore need to remove this distinction, opening a pandora's box of difficulties. 100-proc weapons like bows don't perform well in FO armours, so giving all Ranged weapons the ability to deal at least neutral damage (i.e. my suggestion with Melee weapons) would cause all the ranged 100-procs to essentially become obsolete. We'd need to fix them so they can compete in FO. If we did that, we'd end up removing a key characteristic of Ranged weaponry. Part of the fun of using a bow is knowing it's more efficient than a Ranged 0-proc in FD. Perhaps instead we should release more weapons with 0 to 100-proc toggles, but that would mean adding onto staff labour to make the identity work and, in the meantime, Ranger would be stuck having to use inefficient weapons when it's supposed to be the "Adaptable" build. This is far from the only issue, but it really demonstrates how Ranger's existing set of supporting items may well hinder it in this role, as opposed to making it suitable.
In comparison, Warrior has no such baggage. You can count the number of 100-proc Melee weapons on one hand. There's no distinction because Warrior doesn't have a Defensive identity (we'll get onto that in a moment). That makes it a blank canvas; We can shape its defensive identity more freely. Since there's no playstyle divide in melee weapons, giving them the ability to deal at least neutral damage doesn't make a large portion of them obsolete. It's also less work, since we don't have to deal with the repercussions of making them obsolete either. Plus, it means Warriors are able to switch between FD and FO, giving them a distinct advantage in adaptability that Mages and Rangers do not have. In this scenario, the playstyle differentiation of Ranged weapons actually works to our advantage because it means Rangers have a much harder time switching between the two as efficiently (that goes for Mages too, though we would have some issues to iron out). Yes, it would still require item support, we're still going to need more FO/FD switching armours. That said, we were going to need them anyway for this plan to work. So, my first key reason: Warriors have no Defensive identity, making it uniquely suited to filling the Adaptive pathway.
These circumstances also make it a terrible idea to place Warrior as a Defensive specialist. Despite the challenges, you could still probably coerce Ranger into the Adaptive Pathway. Leaving Warrior as the Defensive specialist though? It has the least support of all 3 builds to fill that role. You could make the blank canvas argument as I did above, shaping it into something new. Perhaps it could be the Blocking focused setup using a new Heavy armour lean. But doing that kinda misses the point. To manage it, we would need to perform a complete rebuild of one of the three major builds in the game. You would need to start pretty much entirely from scratch. Warrior has virtually no Defensive item support at all (e.g., it has one healing skill that isn't even always available!). Unless you took my suggestion and made Melee weapons deal Neutral damage, they would be next to useless where they should be performing the best. It would take years to rebuild Warrior to the point where it could compete, and that's simply not a sensible plan, even in the long-term. Even this doesn't cover the true scope of the problem, because my suggestion would put Melee weapons on par with 100-procs, it wouldn't give Warriors any sort of specialist advantage. So even in the best case scenario, Warrior would have no niche at all for an extended period of time. With that in mind, my second key reason: You might be able to coerce Ranger onto the Adaptable path, but that would also mean turning Warrior into a Defensive specialist.
When you look at it in depth, the idea of an "easy" solution by making Ranger Adaptable evaporates. It would be far more labour intensive.
Builds have always been somewhat of an amorphous concept in AQ, and this makes it a bit difficult to crystallise a concrete reason for why I'm so averse to making build-agnostic characteristics build-specific. The best way I can describe is that builds have always been centralised internally within the Player Damage component of the 20 turn model. The 100% melee you deal per turn. Mages sacrifice some of that so they can cast spells, but it's still counted as part of player damage rather than MP being its own separate component. Build agnostic features (e.g., Pets, SP, Blocking) are all external to the player damage component, so fuelling them I believe is outside the intended scope of a build. It's also hard to justify - why should Warriors be able to use player damage to fuel SP when Mage and Rangers can also use SP. Why should Rangers be able to block between when blocking is inherent to all builds?
In this particular case though, I've got a much clearer answer. It's already incredibly impractical to make Warrior into the Defensive identity, but this would make it even harder for us. It would bind Warrior to a mechanic that's either effectively useless or completely overpowered. I'm not saying it's impossible remedy, but it would take a lot of extra work to turn it into a practical concept. Even once we're done, how do we square this with the blocking options open to Mage and Ranger. Do we now need to remove them now? After all, we can't have Mage/Ranger being better at Blocking than Warrior if it's the key characteristic of their identity.
Regarding the *0.9 idea, my idea of Neutral damage was a suggestion in the first instance, and there's definitely scope to change it to make things fair. We might want to consider something with Magic 100-procs if we do that though - otherwise Warriors are left dealing 90% when Mage and Ranger can deal 100% without issue.
And finally...
quote:
Though I never thought I'd see the day Chaotic argued for nerfing Siphon.
My excessive use of Siphon is precisely why I know it needs to be fixed 
@KorribanGaming Sorry I took so long to respond. At this stage, @Lorekeeper has already responded that he has bigger plans for the (current) 5% mechanics, so not much point in me focusing on them. Regarding the other matter though:
I'll start by saying that I am willing to compromise on having more SP regeneration gear. I need to caveat that by saying it can't regenerate a significant amount of SP combined otherwise it kinda defeats the point of nerfing EO to begin with. It's not going to directly pose a problem for my suggested framework so long as Mages are disincentivised from firiing boosted weapon-based skills every round.
However, I do want to point something out: Diversity operates on multiple scales simultaneously and putting carefully considered restrictions on gameplay can actually increase it. A complete lack of restriction means you can have it all. As an example, if I can regenerate a bar's worth of SP per turn, I can have a chi shield, inflict a burn and control, and maybe still have enough left over for a Skills. If you restrict it though, there's an opportunity cost to your decisions. Spending SP on that burn may mean you now don't have enough for the control, but equally you might be still able to combine the chi shield and skill. If you put 100 players into that situation, you'd find that a variety of combinations of decisions are made as players weigh up how best to spend that more limited SP. This is in comparison to the former scenario, where everyone would simply have it all.
Obviously, we don't want to go too far the other way either, I'm just saying that restrictions aren't always a bad thing.
< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 3/15/2023 20:42:41 >
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
