Janalon2011-10-23 04:14:42
So, you came up with angknek and spam oothai + vessels. OK. That's creative. Come to think of it, Ootangk + vessels at 10mo for five straight actions (deflating to 5mo) before returning to an oothai + might seem even more appropriate given your system. That could help to build vessels even faster.
I never rejected your proposal. I've only framed questions... though I added the "finesse" word for fun.
For example, here's a question: how can we evaluate the merits of a good idea without also considering the downsides as well? Shouldn't we consider everything (like the impact on each kata spec) to discuss the viability of the proposal?
Here's another question: what happens when you take two, -2mo penalties together. You would get -4mo plus the additional -1mo for compounding penalties. So, you loose 5mo total. Let's say that would bring me down from 11mo to 6mo and put me back into 750 ka territory. That's what a double tendon under Nekotai would look like under your system.
Is this your intended effect?
I never rejected your proposal. I've only framed questions... though I added the "finesse" word for fun.
For example, here's a question: how can we evaluate the merits of a good idea without also considering the downsides as well? Shouldn't we consider everything (like the impact on each kata spec) to discuss the viability of the proposal?
Here's another question: what happens when you take two, -2mo penalties together. You would get -4mo plus the additional -1mo for compounding penalties. So, you loose 5mo total. Let's say that would bring me down from 11mo to 6mo and put me back into 750 ka territory. That's what a double tendon under Nekotai would look like under your system.
Is this your intended effect?
Unknown2011-10-23 07:18:47
I think the downsides should be considered, but less so from the kata specs. Or at least from one of them. If this is something that requires too much change in the other three guilds, then maybe something else should be looked at. If it's only Nekotai that need some adjusting, then let's adjust Nekotai and take the better system.
To your last question: yes. A double tendon is quite powerful, and honestly, I'd say it'd be worth 5mo under the new system. One thing I'm not sure of, however, is if you'll end up at 5mo or 6mo. I can't remember if the penalties are taken during the boost or after, but even then.... You're left with 500 ka rather than the 250 or 350 from the old system, but unlike the old, you've got a long way to go before you can pull that off again.
You can kaife (I think?) up from 5 to 7 for 1p (6p then from the boost), and you're still 3 forms away from repeating it unless you kaife again (7p total). To me, that sounds like a win-win because that combo isn't going to show up again for awhile and you're left with some ka to take advantage of it without having too much to dish out another big punishment.
That does open up a perma-prone situation if you ootangk the legs, which that would be dangerous, actually, and you could do that three times. However, if I'm not mistaken, you can only ootangk, which means you're doing nothing else. Not even kicking. For that to be a smart choice, it'd have to be in a group situation, and as we both know, if the targets are dying too fast, good luck building up to 5 momentum, let alone 10. So yes: that would be a powerful effect, but I think it's okay considering that it's only useful in groups and it would take some work to be able to pull it off. That's at least ~30 seconds to set up that double-tendon assuming no problems.
To your last question: yes. A double tendon is quite powerful, and honestly, I'd say it'd be worth 5mo under the new system. One thing I'm not sure of, however, is if you'll end up at 5mo or 6mo. I can't remember if the penalties are taken during the boost or after, but even then.... You're left with 500 ka rather than the 250 or 350 from the old system, but unlike the old, you've got a long way to go before you can pull that off again.
You can kaife (I think?) up from 5 to 7 for 1p (6p then from the boost), and you're still 3 forms away from repeating it unless you kaife again (7p total). To me, that sounds like a win-win because that combo isn't going to show up again for awhile and you're left with some ka to take advantage of it without having too much to dish out another big punishment.
That does open up a perma-prone situation if you ootangk the legs, which that would be dangerous, actually, and you could do that three times. However, if I'm not mistaken, you can only ootangk, which means you're doing nothing else. Not even kicking. For that to be a smart choice, it'd have to be in a group situation, and as we both know, if the targets are dying too fast, good luck building up to 5 momentum, let alone 10. So yes: that would be a powerful effect, but I think it's okay considering that it's only useful in groups and it would take some work to be able to pull it off. That's at least ~30 seconds to set up that double-tendon assuming no problems.
Malarious2011-10-23 07:38:37
Increasing penalties is a no no, thats a ground rule because it creates issues when you break outside of guilds. Ninjakari can greenlock with -1 mo. Shofangi at -2 (yours moves to -3). Tahtetso would see their prone setup for their insta ruined entirely. Nekotai use -3 mo to try greenlock (4 under yours). The penalty increase is a bad system.
Creating any set where the goal is to keep fighting in mid range is both asking to self cripple and bound to fail, because who will stay mid if they main goals are high? Our skills didnt change why would I be happier taking twice as long to get nowhere before being able to feel able to do something? You propose that we can change things to stay in the mid range but all that does is mean that either we are unstoppable at high (because mid is viable, high must be godly) or there is little motivation to progress that high.
As can be expected this skill evaluation is taking awhile but I will be finding reps for each guild shortly to review a set of v1 changes. These will focus on only outliers, but I will take thoughts on other concerns as well. As expected Nekotai have several changes generally aimed at ka costs, for the reasons stated above. Most will be little touched or untouched.
- Ninjakari have 1 nerf and 1 alteration atm
- Shofangi have 1 nerf and a request for new skills (they have the lowest skill variation)
- Tahtetso are pending an advisor as they are a bit... finicky to handle due to their build
- Nekotai I will get thoughts on and try to cut into a pristine set of adjustments.
I will try to find advisors soon, however, failing a pre assigned advisor I will give the GM and GA a copy to give to who they wish to handle the matter. I dislike the idea of adding momentum levels personally, because that usually implies more level of boredom or stagnation. Yay I get to oothai 3 extra times! If you want to add levels make them generally higher, 350 ka wont kill anyone and I have yet to be given any viable reason why we need 250 as the start.
If desired I can post my suggested mechanics changes at this time though.
Creating any set where the goal is to keep fighting in mid range is both asking to self cripple and bound to fail, because who will stay mid if they main goals are high? Our skills didnt change why would I be happier taking twice as long to get nowhere before being able to feel able to do something? You propose that we can change things to stay in the mid range but all that does is mean that either we are unstoppable at high (because mid is viable, high must be godly) or there is little motivation to progress that high.
As can be expected this skill evaluation is taking awhile but I will be finding reps for each guild shortly to review a set of v1 changes. These will focus on only outliers, but I will take thoughts on other concerns as well. As expected Nekotai have several changes generally aimed at ka costs, for the reasons stated above. Most will be little touched or untouched.
- Ninjakari have 1 nerf and 1 alteration atm
- Shofangi have 1 nerf and a request for new skills (they have the lowest skill variation)
- Tahtetso are pending an advisor as they are a bit... finicky to handle due to their build
- Nekotai I will get thoughts on and try to cut into a pristine set of adjustments.
I will try to find advisors soon, however, failing a pre assigned advisor I will give the GM and GA a copy to give to who they wish to handle the matter. I dislike the idea of adding momentum levels personally, because that usually implies more level of boredom or stagnation. Yay I get to oothai 3 extra times! If you want to add levels make them generally higher, 350 ka wont kill anyone and I have yet to be given any viable reason why we need 250 as the start.
If desired I can post my suggested mechanics changes at this time though.
Unknown2011-10-23 09:07:23
I like how you're talking as if you're the one in charge. It's supposed to be a joint thing, so listing your stuff as if it's set in stone gives a bad atmosphere. Anyway...
You state that the increasing mo penalties is bad because it increases mo penalties. As to the instances you mentioned, Ninjakari have the most unreliable lock of them all, and while it is spamable, it's still unlikely to hit, especially when the person reparries and stances. (I wouldn't be against changing it to be less spamable in exchange for more reliability.) Shofangi going to 3 is intended. If it creates a problem for the Tahtetso, we can fix it (their insta is excessively powerful right now due to the regen change anyway), and as far as I understand it, the Nekotai have the most reliable greenlock period. So because I'm nerfing the excess of regen and other mo-penalized actions, the system's bad? I thought that it was one of the chief complaints about monks, and so I'm nerfing it without having to go in and change -every- skill.
You're creating a false dichotomy by assuming the high-tier will be godly if the mid is viable: you're not entitled to that assumption. People complain about our high, so by extending the mid, we're on an even playing ground and have to work for the best forms that come at 10. There's still motivation, as you need the 10 mo to pull moves off like constrict or double tendon and the instas. That's not godly though, as those types of moves will drop you down. You also forget that sustaining momentum would be easier after it's built up. You'd still only lose -2 for changing targets (building momentum off of someone might be a problem, though, as you could go from 10-8. A hardcap of 5 might be smarter, actually).
What are the things you're changing and, more importantly, why?
You state that the increasing mo penalties is bad because it increases mo penalties. As to the instances you mentioned, Ninjakari have the most unreliable lock of them all, and while it is spamable, it's still unlikely to hit, especially when the person reparries and stances. (I wouldn't be against changing it to be less spamable in exchange for more reliability.) Shofangi going to 3 is intended. If it creates a problem for the Tahtetso, we can fix it (their insta is excessively powerful right now due to the regen change anyway), and as far as I understand it, the Nekotai have the most reliable greenlock period. So because I'm nerfing the excess of regen and other mo-penalized actions, the system's bad? I thought that it was one of the chief complaints about monks, and so I'm nerfing it without having to go in and change -every- skill.
You're creating a false dichotomy by assuming the high-tier will be godly if the mid is viable: you're not entitled to that assumption. People complain about our high, so by extending the mid, we're on an even playing ground and have to work for the best forms that come at 10. There's still motivation, as you need the 10 mo to pull moves off like constrict or double tendon and the instas. That's not godly though, as those types of moves will drop you down. You also forget that sustaining momentum would be easier after it's built up. You'd still only lose -2 for changing targets (building momentum off of someone might be a problem, though, as you could go from 10-8. A hardcap of 5 might be smarter, actually).
What are the things you're changing and, more importantly, why?
Malarious2011-10-23 17:59:58
I like how you make broad statements in your opening, that are generally wrong.
No one said anything about Ninjakari greenlock, as I said before, you are assuming and uninformed.Change to ninombhi would rewrite several pieces of Ninjakari offense, which is a considerable amount of adjusting. This is not on the table.
Creating higher mo penalties mean more skills you will never get to use, -4 mo means a nekotai will never see their insta usable because it cost the 5p to use it, we need to keep the power to insta. At that point it would take so long to recover the momentum they would have either cured out or bled to death if they are truly locked.
You guys are playing with mechanics, I am looking at the main problems (the skills). It was agreed that adding momentum wouldnt do much of anything without something else to ground the framework changes.
And after all this time I am fully entitled to my "assumptions" that tend to be well informed and gauged by looking at current trends and changes. It says, "people do well in medium", as a guild who can throw mods into any form as time goes on you get more and more penalties trying to fight me as I progress. So if my mid is good my high will destroy you as a general rule.
EDIT: Adjusted to not sound so flamey, thats not the goal. But assuming you know what I am doing is a bad assumption. As a note, I have 2 for sure advisors set, 1 in flux, and Ninjakari have to select theres which I am assuming will be Sahmiam. Once I have all 4 I will send each guild their tiny little letter.
No one said anything about Ninjakari greenlock, as I said before, you are assuming and uninformed.Change to ninombhi would rewrite several pieces of Ninjakari offense, which is a considerable amount of adjusting. This is not on the table.
Creating higher mo penalties mean more skills you will never get to use, -4 mo means a nekotai will never see their insta usable because it cost the 5p to use it, we need to keep the power to insta. At that point it would take so long to recover the momentum they would have either cured out or bled to death if they are truly locked.
You guys are playing with mechanics, I am looking at the main problems (the skills). It was agreed that adding momentum wouldnt do much of anything without something else to ground the framework changes.
And after all this time I am fully entitled to my "assumptions" that tend to be well informed and gauged by looking at current trends and changes. It says, "people do well in medium", as a guild who can throw mods into any form as time goes on you get more and more penalties trying to fight me as I progress. So if my mid is good my high will destroy you as a general rule.
EDIT: Adjusted to not sound so flamey, thats not the goal. But assuming you know what I am doing is a bad assumption. As a note, I have 2 for sure advisors set, 1 in flux, and Ninjakari have to select theres which I am assuming will be Sahmiam. Once I have all 4 I will send each guild their tiny little letter.
Janalon2011-10-23 19:05:31
The "You're wrong, I'm right" level of bickering is getting out of hand. Actually, it is getting quite laughable. Remember that we are only brainstorming problem/solutions and using each other's expertise to refine proposals. Anything else that cuts at another person's integrity not only diminishes them, but also makes you look foolish. Let's stop before this reaches new ridiculous proportions.Please.
Anyway, let's move on. Here is another aspect of monks that should be updated: kata performance syntax.
Long story short, kata chain mechanics were mostly made obsolete when raze was changed from an in-form kata mod to what we have presently. Don't get me wrong, the change was absolutely necessary. However, without a system that uses momentum tracking, it becomes cumbersome to alias/keybind each individual form (five forms alone are needed for bashing).
I view this as a barrier for those who are new to Lusternia and/or IRE games, or at least from what I can see dealing with novices as the guild administrator. I'm wondering if we could have an alternate of the performance syntax (not mechanic) for modern-day monks. Something to the effect of
Anyway, let's move on. Here is another aspect of monks that should be updated: kata performance syntax.
KATA PERFORM
KATA TERMINATE
Long story short, kata chain mechanics were mostly made obsolete when raze was changed from an in-form kata mod to what we have presently. Don't get me wrong, the change was absolutely necessary. However, without a system that uses momentum tracking, it becomes cumbersome to alias/keybind each individual form (five forms alone are needed for bashing).
I view this as a barrier for those who are new to Lusternia and/or IRE games, or at least from what I can see dealing with novices as the guild administrator. I'm wondering if we could have an alternate of the performance syntax (not mechanic) for modern-day monks. Something to the effect of
KATA PERFORM MOMENTUM<1mo form>
This syntax would provide simple momentum tracking (not automation) to pick the pre-defined form given the current level of momentum (and maybe adjusting for target switching). Just to be clear, there would be no chaining or speed bonus under this additional command option. I hope this adjustment would help ease syntax to retain guild novices and build player base.
EDIT: kata performances are still needed to help land grapple+ender combos. Don't eliminate basic kata perform if this idea is considered appropriate.
Malarious2011-10-24 02:46:20
Advisors:
Tahtetso - Xena
Nekotai - Lerad
Shofangi - Wobou
Ninjakari - not assigned yet, assuming Ulen or Sahmiam (no reply from Jazris yet)
Balance - Janalon
I wont open the first set of thoughts till the respective advisors get to see them.
Tahtetso - Xena
Nekotai - Lerad
Shofangi - Wobou
Ninjakari - not assigned yet, assuming Ulen or Sahmiam (no reply from Jazris yet)
Balance - Janalon
I wont open the first set of thoughts till the respective advisors get to see them.
Janalon2011-10-24 10:33:53
Alright, I'm moving away from the "harder" balance issues, to the more "soft" issues. Some of these ideas are going to sound more like a wish-list. I still believe they tie back into ideas of monk balance and equity, but have a much lower priority than the other ideas mentioned in this thread so far.
Additionally, some of us do use all 75 allotted slots.
Sahm, I've also maxed out my 75 slots. I'd like to propose two ideas to address the kata form cap:

And here, another idea to help ease redundant syntax in kata forms.
I do have some reservations about the second idea, as it might cross a fine line between lessening redundant syntax and easing the need for certain skill in combat. Thoughts?
Additionally, some of us do use all 75 allotted slots.
Sahm, I've also maxed out my 75 slots. I'd like to propose two ideas to address the kata form cap:

There's a fair amount of precedence for artifacts to increase capacity: dimensional anomaly, runes of glass working/tobacconist, spatial expansion, demesnes, dominion. In that same line of tradition, introduce a new monk-specific artifact to increase the kata form cap. Maybe a lesser and greater "of the Kata Master" (not sure what that something would be... belt?) to increase max forms by increments of 50 for 100 credits.
And here, another idea to help ease redundant syntax in kata forms.
Kata forms target specific limbs. Nekotai, for example, have a fair amount of arm and leg based afflictions. For example, I have four vessels (kaiga) forms that afflict at 3mo, another four at 4mo, and another four at 5mo. That's 12 forms dedicated to randomizing the target. I wonder if the burden of syntax could be eased with ARMS and LEGS (meaning it randomizes targets between right and left) as possible limb targets. This would help reduce redundancy.
I do have some reservations about the second idea, as it might cross a fine line between lessening redundant syntax and easing the need for certain skill in combat. Thoughts?
Janalon2011-10-24 11:04:56
Malarious:
As can be expected this skill evaluation is taking awhile but I will be finding reps for each guild shortly to review a set of v1 changes. These will focus on only outliers, but I will take thoughts on other concerns as well.
Why are you using secret advisers to review your set of v1 changes? Just post them here to reduce the amount of correspondence. Not to mention you will get a forum-full of feedback.
Malarious2011-10-24 21:33:51
Because before you make a problem public you should ensure its a problem. Tahtetsos report is empty, Nekotai have several changes which I would like to condense into as few as possible. Ninjakari have like 2 adjustments. And Shofangi have like 1.. but a request for more skills. If you really want I can post them here but there is a good chance things will change heavily, and without the respective guilds opinions it seems like bad practice to cause a riot where there may be nothing wrong. And yes, forums are known to overreact to a non issue.
Janalon2011-10-24 22:53:38
That's OK. I think everyone would be accepting of a working draft to be refined through the forums; this is essentially the process in the other special report threads. To be honest, I don't think there is much of an interest in monk changes considering the lack of participation in this thread or any leadup.
Also, as the Nekotai GA and Envoy, I'd be happy to make our issues public as we have done in the past. I like transparency. Feel free to post part of your Nekotai problem/solutions if you are uncomfortable revealing ideas for the other monk guilds.
Also, as the Nekotai GA and Envoy, I'd be happy to make our issues public as we have done in the past. I like transparency. Feel free to post part of your Nekotai problem/solutions if you are uncomfortable revealing ideas for the other monk guilds.
Malarious2011-10-25 05:32:12
I do not think it is lack of interest, we have nearly 1000 views.But as has been said before, it is quite likely a "we have no idea how to address this". In fact I think I will write something up about monks for nonmonks to read over!
Janalon2011-10-25 09:41:36
So, if I may summarize your main points:
Malarious:
That said I am writing something up I will reveal later.
Malarious:
I have heard complaints to either change :/ so its a coin flip on that. We will see when the proposals are finished.
Malarious:
That said I am writing something up I will reveal later.
Malarious:
Anyway, back to my workin!
Malarious:
. . . but first let me finish my fine tune tweaking! Will post it afternoon. Bed time!
Malarious:
I dont know that I will be done before I head out. Trying to be thorough and only need 1 set of changes.
Malarious:
I will have some mechanics changed in my report (which will likely be after work) as well. . . I also disagree with "leaving it to the envoys" this system assumes the envoys will agree to change something, generally depends on multiple changes quickly (envoys are never fast), and implies that the admin will actually approve all changes. . . We will see though, I am still working on it, not only to create the evaluation but then to compare for whats the best series.
Malarious:
I will try to find advisors soon, however, failing a pre assigned advisor I will give the GM and GA a copy to give to who they wish to handle the matter. . . If desired I can post my suggested mechanics changes at this time though.
Malarious:
As a note, I have 2 for sure advisors set, 1 in flux, and Ninjakari have to select theres which I am assuming will be Sahmiam. Once I have all 4 I will send each guild their tiny little letter.
Malarious:
I wont open the first set of thoughts till the respective advisors get to see them.
Janalon2011-10-25 09:45:23
(exceeded some random limit on number of quotes in a post)
This has the appearance of a ton of talk without saying anything at all. I would prefer you post your product, rather than running on and on in vague detail about your process.
You have created so much buildup around the posting of your proposal. YES, at this time I would prefer you post them here OR please stop writing that you will get them soon.
Malarious:
If you really want I can post them here but there is a good chance things will change heavily, and without the respective guilds opinions it seems like bad practice to cause a riot where there may be nothing wrong. And yes, forums are known to overreact to a non issue.
Malarious:
In fact I think I will write something up about monks for nonmonks to read over!
This has the appearance of a ton of talk without saying anything at all. I would prefer you post your product, rather than running on and on in vague detail about your process.
You have created so much buildup around the posting of your proposal. YES, at this time I would prefer you post them here OR please stop writing that you will get them soon.
Janalon2011-10-25 11:02:53
While we are dealing with balancing monks, I am wondering if we should revisit how damage scales to wounds:
I have no immediate thoughts on this, but feel that this mechanic leads to some outlier damage. Perhaps tamp the damage boost down to 225% or 200% at max wounds and scale the rest? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Message #1987 Sent by: Malarious
07/19 16:56 "At 3750 wounds you do 263% of your normal damage. Past 3750 the damage is the same,
wounds only increase damage between 250 and 3750 wounds."
I have no immediate thoughts on this, but feel that this mechanic leads to some outlier damage. Perhaps tamp the damage boost down to 225% or 200% at max wounds and scale the rest? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Binjo2011-10-26 06:26:11
I'm here, my sweets.
In terms of overall mechanics I think that increasing the number of momentum levels is a good idea in the long term. That being said I'm not sure if it should be implemented because as we've been discussing it'd require a redesign of the momentum costs (and possibly ka costs) of pretty much all the skills. With any major shift like that we'd either be more overpowered or flailing around waiting for our envoys to make us viable again. I think that adding power to moves, as Malarious and Ushaara discussed, is the most direct and effective way to curb our afflicting potential. For example I'd be fine adding a power cost to the shofangi greenlock (I've always hated it, and hated that I need it to kill certain people).
One thing I'd like to note on is that the usual people who complain about monks are warriors, and the ones who aren't warriors justify themselves by comparing monks to warriors. They have good reasons to do this, our afflictions are guaranteed on hit (with a few wound checking exceptions) and we can achieve critical warrior afflictions including regenerates rather easily. One thing to note from this is that the momentum system does actually function as a balance against super outlier warriors. A pureblade who can build wounds due to outlier stats or skill can hit tendon after tendon where as a monk simply cannot. The flip side to this of course is that a competent monk can land crazy affliction combos more readily than even runed and transed warriors. I think we should reflect on the game as a whole and explore the purposes of these two archetypes. By design those below a certain level of health are simply designed to die to warriors. If a warrior can consistently force sips on you then you die. The same is true for monks but the imbalance lies in a monk's ability (at higher levels) to force a sip more readily than a warrior can. All this means though is that the health bar to-not-die is raised, someone with 8k health is not going to be forced to sip by either archetype. So the question is do we buff warriors (as we have been) to be more in line with monks? Do we nerf monk damage closer to warrior damage? Do we change the fundamental mechanics of one or the other?
Personally I think the answer is to buff warriors by nerfing high end armor (tattoomaster/splendours/plate/shield runes) and adjust their swing rates to make their most powerful afflictions more reliable. Make their wounding buildable even without forcing a sip (although obviously much greater building if they do). Let monks be the minor wounding/high damage/high affliction and warriors be high wounds/medium damage with more constant heavy affs.
If you feel the connection I've posited between monks and warriors is not the source of balance concerns then I'd like to hear your opinion. Actually I'd like any sort of feedback at all.
In terms of overall mechanics I think that increasing the number of momentum levels is a good idea in the long term. That being said I'm not sure if it should be implemented because as we've been discussing it'd require a redesign of the momentum costs (and possibly ka costs) of pretty much all the skills. With any major shift like that we'd either be more overpowered or flailing around waiting for our envoys to make us viable again. I think that adding power to moves, as Malarious and Ushaara discussed, is the most direct and effective way to curb our afflicting potential. For example I'd be fine adding a power cost to the shofangi greenlock (I've always hated it, and hated that I need it to kill certain people).
One thing I'd like to note on is that the usual people who complain about monks are warriors, and the ones who aren't warriors justify themselves by comparing monks to warriors. They have good reasons to do this, our afflictions are guaranteed on hit (with a few wound checking exceptions) and we can achieve critical warrior afflictions including regenerates rather easily. One thing to note from this is that the momentum system does actually function as a balance against super outlier warriors. A pureblade who can build wounds due to outlier stats or skill can hit tendon after tendon where as a monk simply cannot. The flip side to this of course is that a competent monk can land crazy affliction combos more readily than even runed and transed warriors. I think we should reflect on the game as a whole and explore the purposes of these two archetypes. By design those below a certain level of health are simply designed to die to warriors. If a warrior can consistently force sips on you then you die. The same is true for monks but the imbalance lies in a monk's ability (at higher levels) to force a sip more readily than a warrior can. All this means though is that the health bar to-not-die is raised, someone with 8k health is not going to be forced to sip by either archetype. So the question is do we buff warriors (as we have been) to be more in line with monks? Do we nerf monk damage closer to warrior damage? Do we change the fundamental mechanics of one or the other?
Personally I think the answer is to buff warriors by nerfing high end armor (tattoomaster/splendours/plate/shield runes) and adjust their swing rates to make their most powerful afflictions more reliable. Make their wounding buildable even without forcing a sip (although obviously much greater building if they do). Let monks be the minor wounding/high damage/high affliction and warriors be high wounds/medium damage with more constant heavy affs.
If you feel the connection I've posited between monks and warriors is not the source of balance concerns then I'd like to hear your opinion. Actually I'd like any sort of feedback at all.
Janalon2011-10-26 10:37:09
Yes, a momentum redesign would require adjusting costs at each momentum level. As long as we parallel the max ka around what the current structure, I speculate we wouldn't need to readjust ability ka weight. We would only need to directly address penalty costs. The different momentum redesign proposals would also require different takes on penalty adjustment. In reflection, I believe there is a ton of agreement about the need to tweak penalty costs (though there is debate about whether a momentum redesign could achieve that, or which proposal would have better effect).
If you read into either Sahmiam or my momentum proposal, we both want to see top end afflictions tapped down a little, and make middle momentum levels more viable by reducing the 3mo - 4mo cliff: this was an issue raised earlier by Lerad. Tau raises the concern of the OP/UP divide that we all feel. Sahm, Malarious, yourself, and I would like to see readjusted penalty costs to address to make certain skills more viable, and others more challenging. Yes, it may be possible to address penalty costs without tweaking momentum levels. I anticipate this will be Malarious' main proposal once he gets around to writing.
Also I agree with the silliness of the whole monk versus warrior debate is mostly futile. I don't know how the special reports will be finalized: simultaneous or sequential. I've advocated to keep monk issues separated from warriors, not to homogenize the archetypes, and allow the warrior report to be prioritized. I'm hoping that if warriors get their fix first, monk issues may not seem so… urgent? Necessary? Never understood saying "Monks are more perfect warriors," in one breath, and then turning around with "Warriors are broken due to RNG," the next. In my mind, I equate that to, "Monks are more perfect than an archetype faulted by layers of RNG obstacles." Monks are monks. Warriors are warriors. Let's move on.
The whole damage issue I started to raise regards several interconnected issues: outlier damage due to stacking bonuses, how weapon runes impact monk damage output, and the possibility for monks to also acquire an alternate damage type (following in the footsteps of a envoy report addressing warrior concerns). Decreasing damage scaling to wounds isn't so much about suggesting another nerf, as it is to decrease the potential for outliers: people are still talking about Thul nearly 2 years later; Sahm once claimed being able to achieve something like 7k damage in a single kata form given a very unrealistic setup (basically no curing on the part of the target).
If you read into either Sahmiam or my momentum proposal, we both want to see top end afflictions tapped down a little, and make middle momentum levels more viable by reducing the 3mo - 4mo cliff: this was an issue raised earlier by Lerad. Tau raises the concern of the OP/UP divide that we all feel. Sahm, Malarious, yourself, and I would like to see readjusted penalty costs to address to make certain skills more viable, and others more challenging. Yes, it may be possible to address penalty costs without tweaking momentum levels. I anticipate this will be Malarious' main proposal once he gets around to writing.
Also I agree with the silliness of the whole monk versus warrior debate is mostly futile. I don't know how the special reports will be finalized: simultaneous or sequential. I've advocated to keep monk issues separated from warriors, not to homogenize the archetypes, and allow the warrior report to be prioritized. I'm hoping that if warriors get their fix first, monk issues may not seem so… urgent? Necessary? Never understood saying "Monks are more perfect warriors," in one breath, and then turning around with "Warriors are broken due to RNG," the next. In my mind, I equate that to, "Monks are more perfect than an archetype faulted by layers of RNG obstacles." Monks are monks. Warriors are warriors. Let's move on.
The whole damage issue I started to raise regards several interconnected issues: outlier damage due to stacking bonuses, how weapon runes impact monk damage output, and the possibility for monks to also acquire an alternate damage type (following in the footsteps of a envoy report addressing warrior concerns). Decreasing damage scaling to wounds isn't so much about suggesting another nerf, as it is to decrease the potential for outliers: people are still talking about Thul nearly 2 years later; Sahm once claimed being able to achieve something like 7k damage in a single kata form given a very unrealistic setup (basically no curing on the part of the target).
Unknown2011-10-26 15:43:10
Janalon:
Yes, a momentum redesign would require adjusting costs at each momentum level. As long as we parallel the max ka around what the current structure, I speculate we wouldn't need to readjust ability ka weight. We would only need to directly address penalty costs. The different momentum redesign proposals would also require different takes on penalty adjustment. In reflection, I believe there is a ton of agreement about the need to tweak penalty costs (though there is debate about whether a momentum redesign could achieve that, or which proposal would have better effect).
If you read into either Sahmiam or my momentum proposal, we both want to see top end afflictions tapped down a little, and make middle momentum levels more viable by reducing the 3mo - 4mo cliff: this was an issue raised earlier by Lerad. Tau raises the concern of the OP/UP divide that we all feel. Sahm, Malarious, yourself, and I would like to see readjusted penalty costs to address to make certain skills more viable, and others more challenging. Yes, it may be possible to address penalty costs without tweaking momentum levels. I anticipate this will be Malarious' main proposal once he gets around to writing.
Also I agree with the silliness of the whole monk versus warrior debate is mostly futile. I don't know how the special reports will be finalized: simultaneous or sequential. I've advocated to keep monk issues separated from warriors, not to homogenize the archetypes, and allow the warrior report to be prioritized. I'm hoping that if warriors get their fix first, monk issues may not seem so… urgent? Necessary? Never understood saying "Monks are more perfect warriors," in one breath, and then turning around with "Warriors are broken due to RNG," the next. In my mind, I equate that to, "Monks are more perfect than an archetype faulted by layers of RNG obstacles." Monks are monks. Warriors are warriors. Let's move on.
The whole damage issue I started to raise regards several interconnected issues: outlier damage due to stacking bonuses, how weapon runes impact monk damage output, and the possibility for monks to also acquire an alternate damage type (following in the footsteps of a envoy report addressing warrior concerns). Decreasing damage scaling to wounds isn't so much about suggesting another nerf, as it is to decrease the potential for outliers: people are still talking about Thul nearly 2 years later; Sahm once claimed being able to achieve something like 7k damage in a single kata form given a very unrealistic setup (basically no curing on the part of the target).
Basically it was:
Curing off
Not dead
Sitting
Paralyzed
Sensitive
Max Wounds
Stunned
Full Health
It's not something that should be balanced around, as the above is impossible to happen outside a testing environment. People would die -way- before it reached that point or cure out of it. I used blowgun to give the paralysis and sensitivity, had the person sit down, and used the twisting limbs aff to give max wounds. She sipped her way to full health and we waited for the 30k wounds on the body part.
Quorre2011-10-26 18:20:47
I think adding a power cost to the momentum boosting strikes was a really good thing. Before, I could tendon-kaife-tendon-kaife-tendon ad infinitum, I'm sure other guilds probably had something silly like that they could do. Adding a power cost to certain regen afflictions is another good idea I feel, but that would potentially make certain things for monks super expensive (nekotai green lock would then cost what, 7 power and 2 momentum?).
If we do add a power cost, I would suggest taking the power cost of boost down, say 1-2 power. This would mean that at mid level you could choose to get the temporary boost at say 3 or 4 to use 4 or 5 momentum moves, or you could still kaife to get a the permanent momentum jump. It means the high end stuff is easier to use, but the high end stuff ususally does regen cures, so that would be accounted for by the power cost to use them. It also would mean at mo3 you could spend 2 power to use mo5, but if you do use the regen affs you'll be busted down to mo 1 anyhow.
If we do add a power cost, I would suggest taking the power cost of boost down, say 1-2 power. This would mean that at mid level you could choose to get the temporary boost at say 3 or 4 to use 4 or 5 momentum moves, or you could still kaife to get a the permanent momentum jump. It means the high end stuff is easier to use, but the high end stuff ususally does regen cures, so that would be accounted for by the power cost to use them. It also would mean at mo3 you could spend 2 power to use mo5, but if you do use the regen affs you'll be busted down to mo 1 anyhow.
Unknown2011-10-26 18:28:46
Quorre:
I think adding a power cost to the momentum boosting strikes was a really good thing. Before, I could tendon-kaife-tendon-kaife-tendon ad infinitum, I'm sure other guilds probably had something silly like that they could do. Adding a power cost to certain regen afflictions is another good idea I feel, but that would potentially make certain things for monks super expensive (nekotai green lock would then cost what, 7 power and 2 momentum?).
If we do add a power cost, I would suggest taking the power cost of boost down, say 1-2 power. This would mean that at mid level you could choose to get the temporary boost at say 3 or 4 to use 4 or 5 momentum moves, or you could still kaife to get a the permanent momentum jump. It means the high end stuff is easier to use, but the high end stuff ususally does regen cures, so that would be accounted for by the power cost to use them. It also would mean at mo3 you could spend 2 power to use mo5, but if you do use the regen affs you'll be busted down to mo 1 anyhow.
I'm a little wary of reducing the boost power cost. I don't think this would do anything to Nekotai (Finalsting is just as useless at 1 power as it is at 5 power, I think) But I don't know the other skill sets well enough to say whether it would affect them greater. Its just makes me nervous.
