cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: San on August 21, 2011, 06:12:08 am
-
Ever since the damage soak values were tweaked to reduce randomness, high strength and ironflesh values on players with at least medium-high armor could essentially juggernaut their way through the battlefield.
My 8 IF, 27 strength character with medium-high level armor can take at least 4-5 hits on average before dying. If a swing doesn't hit my head with speed bonus, I will only get ~ 20% damage or so. This is with ~50 head/body armor.
I believe the change in armor soak values were a good thing, but some other aspects also needed to be tweaked in response.
The solution I propose involves halving the amount of extra HP you get from raising strength, if at all possible. Ever since the armor tweak, the value of a single hitpoint has increased, due to less damage and less glancing favoring tank-based play to survive those hits since they won't bounce.
Those extra hitpoints (with IF) let you survive like 1 extra swing in the past, yet now those same hitpoints would let you survive 2-3 more hits.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion that the amount of HP added just by raising strength is too much, since it's a lot of added value (compared to before) for free.
What do people think about that?
-You still get some HP from strength, but not as much.
-This wouldn't really affect any gameplay mechanics or abilities/equipment. It would just make the difference in HP more reasonable.
-HP would be a little less extreme between Agi and Strength users.
However...
-This might make ironflesh more valuable, but you have to sacrifice points to raise ironflesh.
-This will also make everyone easier to kill.
-
or put in a third attribute: constitution and move IF skill to CON
-
or you buff agi build so that they aren't so crap
-
lol , i remember people wanting to buff IF not so long ago. You shouldn't touch IF, but rather nerf the armor heirlooms imo.
-
Agility should get a buff, I'm going to think about some options for buffing it and make a thread about that.
or put in a third attribute: constitution and move IF skill to CON
That would be rather hard to balance out, would majorly change this whole game, and I think the devs aren't looking for such radical changes right now.
-
lol , i remember people wanting to buff IF not so long ago. You shouldn't touch IF, but rather nerf the armor heirlooms imo.
Agreed.
Also make AGI worthy again. For god's sake.
-
Agility should get a buff, I'm going to think about some options for buffing it and make a thread about that.
That would be rather hard to balance out, would majorly change this whole game, and I think the devs aren't looking for such radical changes right now.
I must say, I don't think adding CON would be hard to balance out. It would also make classes more diverse int he way you could build! I like the idea, thinking on it.
People could have their glass cannons (mostly strength, some agi), Their tanks (mostly con, some strength/agi), Dancers (mostly agi, some strength), etc, etc, etc. all the combinations.
It would add some awesome spice to the game. Of course the initial balancing could be problematic, I think it would be very easy to balance out. Lowering weapon requirements of strength would also help in that scenario, to make more build types possible.
as for implementing this? >1% chance
-
Agreed.
Also make AGI worthy again. For god's sake.
Noooo. Everything should be kept as is. I like being a unique snowflake. (relatively)
-
That would be rather hard to balance out, would majorly change this whole game, and I think the devs aren't looking for such radical changes right now.
A design where 1 attribute, STR, increases both damage given and damage taken is BAD. Game would be radically change to become MORE AWESOME if CON was added
-
Perhaps CON would be cool yes ;) But it would need a lot of changes.
If CON would ever be added it should be difficulty for Armor and requirement for IF.
-
I actually like this Constitution thingy.
Yeah, maybe it would bring new problems, but at least it would make STR less overpowered, it already gives too much.
-
One thing is that probably 30 lvl arent enough then anymore.
But just a guess.
-
lol , i remember people wanting to buff IF not so long ago. You shouldn't touch IF, but rather nerf the armor heirlooms imo.
This.
-
Actually, the agi average seem to be roughly 21 now, as people begin to understand they don't bounce anymore, and archer/xbow classes have higher agi standards than melee. At least this is the case on EU servers. And most high profile 2h/polearms are 18/21.
So I really don't understand why are people still ranting this "str is OP" nonsense. It wasn't before and it got nerfed.
However, adding a CON attributes seems like a good idea to me. Increasing diversity and all that. But just taking features from STR isn't going to produce a balanced game at all.
-
STR is much more useful than AGI atm but on EU servers you'll get ripped to shreds if you go full STR.
Full STR is only for NA servers. On EU make balanced build.
-
It's two different playstyles. I'm currently running 30/9, and the main difference is that I can't always choose my battles. I can't run away from zerg groups, which gets me ganked quite a lot. With a strenght build you either have to camp, or make sure you have backup a.k.a babysitters watching your ass. This build is decent in big melee fights, however I think I prefer some more athletics over the extra HP and powerstrike.
-
On my strength build, I want to be zerged by agi characters. Getting surrounded by a bunch of weaklings ( 18/21 or more agi) and using their quick uncoordinated group movements against them usually makes me come out on top.
Strength builds, just like anything else though, should not be alone. You shouldn't camp, and definitely shouldn't need to be babysat.
-
Disagree entirely with your post... Babysitting was an extreme expression, however you still need to stick to a group of allies to survive usually (with good backup, especially pikes, you're a real killing machine). Of course you can win 1 vs 3 or even more if you're playing against bad players. However, an agility build can run away, kite, change tactics or quickly change position when needed, which a strenght build can't without imediate backup (if enemies are close ofc). Not to mention, with an edge of athletics, you will catch up with players trying to run away.
Also, you're toast versus a group of semi- good players if you're alone, and since the average skill seems to be increasing in general, getting zerged is usually not a very clever tactic...
That doesn't make strenght builds worse by any margin, it has it's upsides as well of course. It's just a somewhat different playstyle imo. I personally think that really skilled players do better with at least 5 athletics.
-
Disagree entirely with your post... Babysitting was an extreme expression, however you still need to stick to a group of allies to survive usually (with good backup, especially pikes, you're a real killing machine). Of course you can win 1 vs 3 or even more if you're playing against bad players. However, an agility build can run away, kite, change tactics or quickly change position when needed, which a strenght build can't without imediate backup (if enemies are close ofc). Not to mention, with an edge of athletics, you will catch up with players trying to run away.
Also, you're toast versus a group of semi- good players if you're alone, and since the average skill seems to be increasing in general, getting zerged is usually not a very clever tactic...
That doesn't make strenght builds worse by any margin, it has it's upsides as well of course. It's just a somewhat different playstyle imo. I personally think that really skilled players do better with at least 5 athletics.
my 30/9 build i can finish off a group of 3 or more players on the regular, its more difficult against good teams and good players yes, but you shouldn't be soloing good players in the first place. I imagine that a group of 5 str builds would be indestructable minus throwers and range
-
I am not loosing 10k gold per a few rounds for my plate to suck.
-
Doesn't each point of STR give 1 point of hp? It would be difficult to reduce this bonus, right? You could discard it altogether, but that would greatly increase the benefit of IF (not a horrible idea though, I actually kind of like it; perhaps increase each point of IF to 3 hp). Armor should be as protective as it is now, or moreso (and more expensive if more protective).
-
Could also just make cut damage actually do damage against anything higher than Lamellar :o
-
my 30/9 build i can finish off a group of 3 or more players on the regular, its more difficult against good teams and good players yes, but you shouldn't be soloing good players in the first place. I imagine that a group of 5 str builds would be indestructable minus throwers and range
Um... that's... kind of the point? You don't have athletics so you can't choose to "not get zerged".. you can't choose your battles so you can't choose not to solo good players.
-
I'm getting bored of americans raving about str builds all the time, going 27/15 polearm build this gen and will see if its worth all the fuss...